Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Marlon Shelmon, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jenel Carillo and Corina Lopez, mailroom employees at the California Training Facility (CTF). In an initial screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court found the complaint stated cognizable claims for violations of the First and Sixth Amendments, as well as a state-law negligence claim.
Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the negligence claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Shelmon failed to present his claim to the Government Claims Board as required by the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 911.2, 945.4, 950.2. In his opposition, Shelmon conceded he had not complied with the CTCA’s fair-presentation requirement and agreed that his negligence claim must be dismissed.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligence claim without prejudice for failure to comply with the CTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirements. The court denied Shelmon’s request for leave to amend as premature, instructing that he may file a motion for leave to amend only after complying with the CTCA, and that any amended complaint must affirmatively allege compliance with or excusal from the CTCA’s fair-presentation procedures.
The court also issued a scheduling order requiring Defendants to file a dispositive motion (or notify the court if summary judgment is inappropriate) by March 9, 2027, with briefing to be completed by April 21, 2027. The court further ordered Defendants to serve a Rand v. Rowland notice on Plaintiff at the time of filing their dispositive motion.
Key Takeaways
- The negligence claim was dismissed without prejudice solely because Plaintiff conceded failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA).
- Leave to amend was denied as premature; Plaintiff must first comply with CTCA procedures before seeking to reassert the state-law claim.
- Any future amended complaint must completely replace the original and include all claims Plaintiff wishes to pursue, per Ninth Circuit precedent (Ferdik v. Bonzelet).
- The court set a firm schedule for Defendants to file a summary judgment or other dispositive motion by March 9, 2027, with full briefing completed by April 21, 2027.
- Defendants are required to serve a Rand v. Rowland notice on the pro se Plaintiff when filing their dispositive motion, warning him of the consequences of failing to oppose summary judgment.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the interplay between federal civil rights claims and supplemental state-law claims in prisoner litigation. While the court preserved Shelmon’s federal constitutional claims (First and Sixth Amendments) for further proceedings, it enforced the CTCA’s mandatory administrative exhaustion requirement as a prerequisite to maintaining a state-law negligence claim in federal court. The ruling reinforces that compliance with the CTCA is a pleading requirement for supplemental state tort claims in the Eastern and Northern Districts of California, citing Creighton v.
City of Livingston. The scheduling order and Rand notice requirement reflect the court’s active case management to ensure the pro se plaintiff receives proper procedural protections during summary judgment practice. The order resolves only the motion and issues described above. Any claims, defenses, or later approval questions not decided by the order remain for further proceedings in the trial court.