Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This matter was continued from October 28, 2025 for purposes of oral argument only. The original tentative ruling is republished below. TENTATIVE RULING: Oral Argument will take place on November 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in this Department.

The Clerk shall fax a copy of this tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator.

The litigation coordinator is directed to have Plaintiff Troy Anderson available at oral argument on November 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Appearance will be by ZOOM. Department 53 Zoom ID is: 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter 161 4650 6749#. Appearance is required.

Defendant Kathleen Allison’s unopposed demurrer to self-represented Plaintiff Tory Anderson’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff began this action by filing his complaint on December 2, 2022, against Defendant, and numerous government official, entities and their employees. The complaint appeared to allege claims for general negligence, intentional tort, breach of contract, violation of civil rights, medical malpractice, defamation, and professional negligence in connection with incidents in 2017 and January 2020 through December 2022 at the California Medical Facility, Salinas Valley State Prison, and Kern Valley State Prison. On February 29, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s approximately 100 page first amended complaint (“FAC”) was essentially identical to the previous version of the complaint except that the FAC did not attach the more than 600 pages of exhibits that the complaint attached. The FAC also included seven pages which cited various legal standards, the California Department of Corrections’ (“CDCR”) operations manual and conclusions of law. On October 15, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC, again with leave to amend.

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “attachment to amended complaint” which is a 17-page document. This document appears to be intended to function as the SAC as Plaintiff states that “[t]his amended version should correct any previous defects raised by Defendants.” (SAC p. 16:17-18.) The SAC is not entirely clear and appears to allege that Defendant failed to “properly train and discipline” CDCR employees, failed to “maintain order

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

and compliance”, and failed to “enforce Title 15, DOM, California Penal Code, and any other statute, policy, or law pertaining to employee responsibilities, duties/obligations that require public discharge of services rendered to establish and maintain a healthy work environment.” (SAC pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable “in her official and private capacity for tortious and non-tortious misconduct arising upon her 2021/2022 transition.” (Id. at p. 5- 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had an “official duty to train all staff that were newly hired,” and a responsibility “to evaluate more diversity of officers.” (Id. at p. 6-7.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant “neglected the overall [management]” of the Office of Department Training and “failed to responsibly establish CDCR personnel policies that ensured that all personnel actions and exams were conducted in compliance [with] applicable control agency laws, rules, policies and procedures.” (Id. at p. 7-8.) Plaintiff also alleges that an advisor to Defendant “assisted in the strategic hiring of predominately one racial group” and therefore created an “intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment.” (Id. at p. 8.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “neglected to fundamentally reform the CDCR approach to racial disparities” which “opposes rehabilitation, increases violence, disorder, and RVR/inmate disciplinary actions, process, and procedures.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff alleges Defendant “failed to properly train & supervise the responsibility of [medical], [mental health staff], & custody defendants in handling [medical] & [mental health]-care & treatment.” (Id. at p. 9-10.) Plaintiff claims this resulted in “times where plaintiff was misdistributed (sic) meds incorrectly.” (Id. at p. 9.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant “failed to manage personnel operations in compliance [with] Coleman standards.” (Id. at p. 10) Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s “inability to achieve a goal in adopting further reform to CDCR’s mission and standards deprived the public, both staff and inmates of [an] opportunity for radical change and a more rehabilitative/healthy work environment.” (Id. at p. 12.)

Defendant now demurs to the SAC on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to plead any sufficient facts to constitute any cause of action against her and also that she is immune.

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (CCP § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d at 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318, William S.

Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612, 1616 fn.2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action - not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591.)

Failure to Plead Facts

As she did in connection with the complaint and the FAC, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege any cause of action against her. The Court previously held that it had “carefully reviewed the handwritten allegations in the body of the complaint and finds no mention of defendant Allison’s name and no specific allegations about what she is claimed to have done or not done with respect to any of the events/incidents described therein. Coupled with the absence of any factual allegations which tend to establish that defendant Allison as former Secretary of CDCR may be held vicariously liable for any or all of the acts and/or omissions of CDCR employees, defendant Allison’s demurrer to the complaint on the grounds it fails to plead facts sufficient to state a valid cause of action against her shall also be sustained.” (February 24, 2024, Minute Order) The Court reached the same conclusion when sustaining the demurrer to the FAC. (October 15, 2024 Minute Order)

The Court notes that while Plaintiff cites to various prison regulations, these do not support a cause of action. (In re Johnson (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 290, 297 [“Prison regulations, including a prison's disciplinary code, are primarily designed to guide prison officials in the administration of the prison and are not designed to confer basic rights upon the inmates.”].)

In addition, while Plaintiff alludes to Defendant’s supervisory role, there are no allegations setting forth the elements of a negligent hiring claim. (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.A4th 1148, 1157.)

Plaintiff also appears to refer to various federal constitutional rights but does not allege how Defendant “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” (Taylor v. List (9th Cir. 1989) 880 F.d 1040, 1045.) Thus, there does not appear to be any basis for a 42 USC § 1983 claim.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

Plaintiff also refers to unnamed “executives” engaged in “concerted acts which violate the conspiracy laws of Title 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) & 1986” apparently to violate his First Amendment rights regarding his prison grievances. (SAC at pp. 13-15.) To state a cause of action under § 1985(3), a complaint must allege “(1) a conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or a class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal injury, property damage or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” (Gillespie v. Civiletti (9th Cir. 1980) 629 F.2d 637, 641.) Plaintiff, however, does not allege that Defendant engaged in any of the subject practices or conspiracies.

In short, the SAC, like the FAC, and the complaint, fails to contain any specific allegations about what Defendant is claimed to have done or not done with respect to any of the conduct in the SAC. Similarly, the SAC, like the previous versions of the complaint, lacks any factual allegations which could show that Defendant, as former Secretary of CDCR may be held vicariously liable for any or all of the acts and/or omissions of CDCR employees.

Defendant’s demurrer to the SAC on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to state any facts showing a valid cause of action against her is sustained.

Immunity

The Court has twice previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the basis that a number of immunities appeared to apply to the conduct alleged in the complaint based on her status as the former Secretary of CDCR, even though it was not clear what Defendant is alleged to have done or not done. (February 24, 2024, and October 15, 2024 Minute Orders) The Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the complaint cited to “Government Code §820.8 [public employee not liable for injury caused by another]; Weaver v.

State of California (1998 (Rev. denied)) 63 Cal.App.4th 188, 202 [CHP commissioner immune from liability based on acts of subordinates]; Government Code §845.6 [immunity for failure to furnish medical care for prisoner]; Government Code §820.2 [immunity for discretionary acts]; Government Code §820.4 [immunity for acts in execution or enforcement of law]; Government Code §821 [immunity for injury caused by failure to enforce enactment]; and Government Code §822.2 [immunity for injury caused by misrepresentations].” (Id.)

The Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the FAC states that “[n]othing has changed from the complaint in the FAC which would avoid the immunities” identified in the Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the complaint.

Once again, nothing has changed which would avoid any of the immunities previously identified in the Court’s rulings on the demurrers to the complaint and the FAC,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00334137-CU-MM-GDS: Troy Anderson vs. Secretary of CDCR 11/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in Department 53

Given the above, the Court need not address Defendant’s additional argument that the SAC is fatally uncertain or that Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

The demurrer is sustained as to Defendant without leave to amend. A demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend absent a showing by plaintiff that a reasonable possibility exists that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The burden of proving such reasonable possibility rests squarely on the plaintiff. (Torres v City of Yorba Linda (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1041.) It was Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate how he could cure the defect and he did not do so.

This is the third time the Court has sustained Defendant’s demurrer and Plaintiff has been unable to plead any viable cause of action. In addition, Plaintiff did not oppose the demurrer, and necessarily failed to show a reasonable possibility that the SAC could be amended to state a cause of action against Defendant. Nor does the Court see any reasonable possibility that the SAC could be amended in light of the defects identified above.

Defendant shall submit a formal order and a judgment of dismissal pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.