Judge Allows San Diego Inmate Death Claim To Proceed

SAN DIEGO, CA – A Superior Court Judge in San Diego has allowed the sister of a prison inmate, James Acuna, to proceed with litigation against the state for the wrongful death of her brother, but refused to allow the inmate’s estate to sue because it had failed to submit proper paperwork seeking compensation.

Judge David M. Rubin’s decision came almost two years after Acuna’s badly decomposed body was found hidden under a blanket in his cell at the Donovan Correctional Center in Otay Mesa.

The state initially denied claims for compensation by Sandra Carbajal as a surviving relative and a representative of Acuna’s estate, saying not only had Carbajal failed to meet the filing deadline, but also should have filed a separate claim form on behalf of the estate.

However, just a few days before April 4 arguments in Rubin’s court, attorneys for the state changed their tune, saying they no longer opposed Carbajal proceeding with her individual claim, but continued to argue against allowing any litigation by Acuna’s estate. This legal position may have in part been due to the fact that frequently claims by an estate are often stronger than those of family members and often result in larger money settlements or jury awards.

Acuna, 58, was last seen alive on April 21, 2017 but his body wasn’t discovered until three days later when prison officials finally investigated complaints of an odor that was initially believed to be a sewage problem.

Acuna’s body was so badly decomposed the San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office was unable to determine the precise cause of death and it was officially listed as “undetermined.” The autopsy report further concluded while it was possible Acuna died of natural causes “homicidal violence cannot be completely excluded,” indicating his body showed “signs of minor blunt force injury of head and extremities."

RELATED: Sister Of Inmate Found Dead On Bunk Seeks Court Order | Mystery Clouds CA Inmate's Death; Cellmate's Past Uncovered | Hidden Body, Falsified Records: Inmate's Death Plagues CA Prison | Odor Thought To Be Sewage Leads CA Prison Staff To Inmate's Body

Although a subsequent investigation was conducted by the San Diego County homicide investigators, the Sheriff’s Office has repeatedly refused to release its report.

Why Acuna’s death went unnoticed despite required headcounts, coupled with the fact he was supposed to be administered daily medication by a licensed psychiatric technician are just two of many questions that remain unanswered. It is also uncertain how many of the 18 prison employees ultimately investigated for their role in the incident have been disciplined because personnel matters are shrouded by state secrecy laws.

Timing an Issue

But the issue before Judge Rubin was focused on whether a claim for compensation from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by Acuna’s family had been submitted within the time limits required by state law, which requires claims to be filed within six months of an incident. Lawsuits against the state are prohibited only if claims submitted within the time limit has been rejected or otherwise denied.

For the judge, the questions boiled down to when did Acuna’s family learn of the inmate’s death, how quickly did they act to submit a claim, was the proper paperwork submitted on behalf of Acuna’s sister as an individual, and separately, as a representative of his estate and was the state’s refusal to consider any claim by Carbajal an arbitrary action designed to protect the CDCR from being sued.

Although Acuna’s body was cremated and the ashes scattered at sea about six weeks after the autopsy, family members were never notified of his death, only learning about it when his brother discovered an online news story on Sept. 14, nearly five months later.

At the time prison officials said the family had not been notified because Acuna’s file didn’t contain information on a next-of-kin, a statement that was later determined to be false as prison records contained the names of several relatives.

On Nov. 3, less than two months after learning of the death, Carbajal, completed and submitted an online claim form with the state Department of General Services under terms of the state’s Government Claims Act. Since 2016 when the state’s claim program was transferred from the Victims Compensation & Government Claims Board, it has been operated by the by the DGS Office of Risk and Insurance Management.

Although state law required Carbajal to submit her claim within six months of Acuna’s death – giving the state time to settle before a lawsuit is filed -- it also permits the Claims Board to waive the time limit if a claim was due to a “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”

Claim Quickly Denied

Carbajal’s claim was rejected within a week on the grounds it had been filed 10 days too late because Acuna’s death had occurred more than six months before the claim was submitted.

But in a petition filed with the court last October, Carbajal’s attorneys argued her claim, in fact, had been submitted in a timely manner and sought a court order allowing Carbajal and Acuna’s estate to sue CDCR and several of its employees, posing the question of specifically when does the clock start running on the six-month time limit.

The petition argued the Claims Board should have accepted Carbajal’s application on the grounds of “surprise or excusable neglect” because of the delay in the family learning of Acuna’s death, and further argued that in any case she met the legal requirements for submitting a claim because she only learned of her brother’s death five months after it occurred and under the state’s delayed discovery rule – which dictates that time limits begin when somebody first learns of an incident – her claim was filed well within the required six-month time period which should have begun on September 14, not the date his body was discovered.

In responding to the petition on March 22, less than two weeks before the hearing, attorneys for CDCR reversed their position saying they no longer opposed Carbajal’s claim as a surviving family member on the grounds of mistake, in advertance, surprise or neglect, but they argued the court didn’t have jurisdiction to consider granting a waiver of the six-month requirement for Acuna’s estate because separate claims, with separate paperwork, should have been submitted – one by Carbajal and another for the estate.

Since Carbajal did not file a separate claim on behalf of her brother’s estate, the CDCR’s attorneys said, only Carbajal’s petition should be considered.

“The intent of the Government Claims Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs against governmental entities,” state attorneys argued. “Rather, the intent of the act is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances. A claim for wrongful death by a surviving family member is ‘wholly distinct’ from an action” by the inmate’s estate.

Judge Rubin agreed.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Mystery Clouds CA Inmate's Death; Cellmate's Past Uncovered

• Hidden Body, Falsified Records: Inmate's Death Plagues CA Prison

• Odor Thought To Be Sewage Leads CA Prison Staff To Inmate's Body