14 Cal. App. 5th 226
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Plaintiff Glenn Towery, an African-American former inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, contracted valley fever during incarceration and alleges ongoing serious illness.
- Towery alleges the State knowingly failed to protect high-risk inmates (including African-Americans) from valley fever and that the inaction was race-based, asserting a claim under the Bane Act (Civ. Code § 52.1).
- Procedurally, Towery's second amended complaint pursued only a § 1983 claim (later dismissed) and a Bane Act claim against the State; the trial court granted the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on public‑entity immunity (Gov. Code § 844.6).
- The legal question on appeal is whether the State’s statutory immunity for injuries to prisoners (Gov. Code § 844.6) is abrogated by the Bane Act.
- The Court of Appeal accepted Towery’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the pleading-stage review but affirmed dismissal, holding that § 844.6 bars Bane Act damages claims against public entities for prisoner injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bane Act abrogates public‑entity immunity for injuries to prisoners under Gov. Code § 844.6 | Towery: § 52.1 creates a damages remedy for rights‑violations and should allow his Bane Act claim against the State despite § 844.6 | State: § 844.6 is a specific statutory immunity for prisoner injuries and prevents Bane Act damages claims against public entities | The Bane Act does not abrogate § 844.6; § 844.6 bars Towery's Bane Act claim against the State |
| Whether § 52.1 should be read to impose liability on the State itself (versus specific employees) | Towery: § 52.1 applies to actors "whether or not acting under color of law," supporting claims against state actors/entities | State: § 52.1 does not on its face create liability for the State; plaintiff alleged only a claim against the State, not specific employees | Court: § 52.1 does not affirmatively create a cause of action against a public entity that overrides statutory immunity |
| Whether qualifying legislative history limits § 844.6 to "ordinary" torts, excluding hate‑crime style Bane Act claims | Towery: Legislative history shows § 844.6 was meant for orderly prison administration and wrongful death, not to shield hate‑crime claims | State: § 844.6’s plain text is broad and unambiguous; no exception for § 52.1 claims exists | Court: § 844.6’s plain language controls; no legislative intent to exclude § 52.1 claims is shown |
| Whether federal qualified immunity authority or other immunities affect the Bane Act claim | Towery relied on cases limiting immunity for constitutional claims | State: California statutory immunities govern and are distinct from federal judicial doctrines | Court: Federal qualified immunity (Venegas II) is inapposite; statutory immunities under California law prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (Cal. 1995) (specific statutory immunities prevail over statutes imposing general liability)
- Creason v. Department of Health Services, 18 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 1998) (same principle that specific immunity statutes cannot be abrogated by general duty statutes)
- O'Toole v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Civil Code § 52.1 does not abrogate statutory immunities for public employees)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.4th 1230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishes federal qualified immunity doctrine from state statutory immunities in Bane Act context)
- County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (Bane Act claim precluded by statutory immunity for certain public‑employee conduct)