Gonzales v. Cal. Dept. of Health Services




Filed 3/9/11 Gonzales v. Cal. Dept. of Health Services CA1/4





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JAMES GONZALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent.

A128238 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC0602413)

I.
Introduction
Appellant James Gonzales, proceeding in propria persona, appeals from the dismissal of his civil action following the sustaining of respondent California Department of Health Services' (DHS) demurrer to his third amended complaint. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer without granting him leave to amend, because it was reasonably possible for the defects in his complaint to be cured by an amendment. We affirm the dismissal.
II.
Factual and Procedural History
The original three-page complaint was filed by appellant in propria persona in the Contra Costa County Superior Court on November 29, 2006. It consisted of two causes of action alleging respondent's failure to accommodate his disability and failure to prevent disability discrimination. The complaint alleged that on or about November 21, 2005, respondent issued a right-to-sue notice to appellant, and that the misconduct which occurred took place in or about January 2003, and January 2004.
That complaint was superseded by a first amended complaint for damages (FAC) filed on or about November 28, 2007. The FAC alleged five causes of action, all arising out of appellant's employment as a painter at respondent's Richmond, California site, which commenced on December 30, 2002. While working for respondent, appellant sustained neck, back, shoulder and arm injuries in an unrelated automobile accident in early 2003. He alleged further that his medical doctor put him on work restrictions resulting from these injuries, and that he requested respondent to provide him with reasonable accommodations, including, but not limited to, a lighter ladder to use. He was refused all accommodations by respondent, which also refused to engage in an â€