This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Negligence
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Malcolm Neuman-Sample v. County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive

Published: Sep. 3, 2016 | Result Date: Aug. 12, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC605975 Demurrer –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Barry S. Zelner
(Zelner & Karpel)


Defendant

Elizabeth G. O'Donnell

Kenneth P. Korosi
(Court of Appeal)

Mark Denis Rutter
(Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont)


Facts

Plaintiff Malcolm Neuman-Sample filed suit against the County of Los Angeles and the State of California relating to his arrest and imprisonment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that he was arrested even though he was not resisting arrest in any way and that the officers used excessive force on him, causing him severe physical and emotional injuries. Furthermore, he claimed he was mistreated while imprisoned at Wasco State Prison, also resulting in severe physical and emotional injuries. He claimed that he was denied medical treatment for his injuries by the arresting officers and jail officials. He also claimed that while at Wasco, he was subjected to numerous racial slurs and threated with physical harm.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action in his first amended complaint for negligence, violation of Government Code Section 845.6, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The State of California contended in its demurrer that most of the causes of action could not be maintained against the state and that all of them were barred because plaintiff neither exhausted his administrative remedies nor plead that he complied with the requirement.

Result

The court sustained the state's demurrer without leave to amend as to the first, third and fourth causes of action and with leave to amend as to the second cause of action.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Jan. 6, 2016.


#120062

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390