Case Name: Alfredo Daniel Garza v. City of San Jose, et al.

Case No.: 18CV332270

Demurrer to Complaint

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Alfredo Daniel Garza (“Garza”) is legally disabled since 2013. (Complaint, p. 2, line 1.) Plaintiff Garza alleges he has been targeted for investigation by defendant City of San Jose (“City”) for emails that were legal and not threats. (Complaint, p. 2, lines 6 – 10.) Defendant City’s attorney did not investigate all witnesses. (Complaint, p. 2, line 11.) The investigation was not impartial and was unfair. (Complaint, p. 2, lines 13 – 16.)

On July 31, 2018, plaintiff Garza filed a complaint entitled “Complaint for Relief Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Violations” against defendant City.

On October 19, 2018, defendant City filed the motion now before the court, a demurrer to plaintiff Garza’s complaint.

III. Defendant City’s demurrer to plaintiff Garza’s complaint is SUSTAINED.

Defendant City demurs initially on the basis that plaintiff Garza’s pleading is uncertain. (See Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (f).) “As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Id.) “Doubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist.” (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.” (Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶7:85, p. 7(I)-42 citing Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Although entitled a complaint for civil rights and civil liberties violations, plaintiff Garza’s complaint proffers little in terms of factual allegations to explain what violations have occurred. (See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139—failure to identify causes of action may render a complaint confusing and subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty.)

In opposition, plaintiff Garza provides some more factual detail about his claim but does not clearly elucidate what cause of action he is asserting. Plaintiff Garza explains that he organized a meeting for the purpose of having City council member Magdalena Carrasco (“Carrasco”) or her representative, Frances Herbert (“Herbert”), explain why Carrasco and/or Herbert were absent from community-held meetings. Ms. Herbert indicated that City council member Carrasco and her staff “were all advised by the San Jose Police Department not to speak with” plaintiff Garza. Plaintiff Garza concludes that his right to free speech “was effectively and completely silenced by representatives of a city government … by addressing and directing all those present at the community meeting not to speak with plaintiff.”

The court does not follow plaintiff Garza’s argument. It is uncertain how Herbert/Carrasco’s refusal to speak with plaintiff abridges plaintiff Garza’s freedom of speech. In any case, the court agrees with defendant City that the allegations contained in plaintiff Garza’s complaint are too uncertain and do not clearly set forth a cause of action.

Although a judge should ensure that self-represented litigants are not being misled or unfairly treated (see Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284), self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment with regard to the Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure. “[W]e cannot disregard the applicable principles of law and accord defendant any special treatment because he instead elected to proceed in propria persona. [Citations.]” (Stein v. Hassen (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 294, 303.) “A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney [citation] ‘but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts.’” (Lombardi v. Citizens Nat’l Trust & Sav. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209.)

Accordingly, defendant City’s demurrer to plaintiff Garza’s complaint on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)] and on the ground that the pleading is uncertain [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (f)] is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend.