2017-00220979-CU-PT

Michael R. Fondren vs. CDCR

Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Relief from Claim Requirement

Filed By: Fondren, Jr., Michael R.

This matter is continued to 3/7/2018 at 02:00PM in this department.

Oral argument on this motion will be heard on March 7, 2018.

The clerk shall fax a copy of the tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to plaintiff. The oral argument will

be heard one week and one day from this date. The parties are required to appear on March 7, 2018 (telephone appearance allowed)
Plaintiff shall be made available for oral argument on March 7, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

Petitioner’s Application for Relief from Claim Requirement is denied.

Petitioner’s application to the public entity to file a late claim was denied on March 27, 2017. The letter informed plaintiff that he had six months from the date of the notice to file a petition for relief from the claims requirement, pursuant to Government Code section 945.4. The Petition was filed October 19, 2017, approximately three weeks late. The last day to file a petition was September 27, 2017.

Petitioner’s application contains no explanation as to why he did not timely file this Petition. His declaration of August 3, 2017 fails to address the March 27, 2017 correspondence even though he attaches it as Ex. E to his Notice of Hearing. The March 27, 2017 correspondence is what triggered the six month period to file the Petition for Relief from Claim Requirement.

The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) requires that any civil complaint for money damages must first be timely presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity. (§§ 910, 912.4; 912.8, 945.4.) Under section 945.4, the presentation of a timely claim is a condition precedent to the initiation of suit. If the claim is not timely presented, the claimant may file a written application with the public entity, in this case the Board, seeking leave to present the late claim. (§911.4.) If the Board fails or refused to act upon the application within 45 days, it is deemed denied by operation of law. (§ 911.6, subd. (c).) “If the application for leave to present the late government claim is timely rejected or deemed denied, the claimant may petition the superior court for an order relieving him or her from the claim requirements. (§ 946.6, subds. (a) & (b).) “A petition for such an order must be filed with the court within six months after the application is denied or deemed denied.” (Rason v Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 823.) This six- month period “operates as a statute of limitations. It is mandatory, not discretionary.” (D.C. v. Oakdale Joint Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1572, 1582.) This six-month statute of limitations “begins to run on denial of an application for leave and not on notice of that denial.” (City of San Diego v. Superior Court (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 1,10.)

Petitioner has given no explanation as to why this Petition was not filed on or before September 27, 2017. The Petition is denied as untimely under Government Code section 945.4.

Self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639. The Court recognizes that plaintiff is self-represented and no doubt has little or no legal training. However, self-represented litigants required to follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation. McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523. A party representing himself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210)