Filed 8/6/26 Capers v. San Bernardino County CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
MA’LEENA CAPERS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E085966
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2434871)
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Wilfred J.
Schneider, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Ma’Leena Capers, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, Elyse S. Okada, Deputy County Counsel, for
Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant Ma’Leena Capers (Capers) appeals the denial of her
“Petition for Relief from Government Claim Filing Requirements” (all caps and boldface
1
omitted; hereafter, the Petition) filed pursuant to Government Code section 946.6.1 This
case involves Capers’s claim that she suffered injuries as a result of actions by defendant
and respondent San Bernardino County (County), specifically its employees at the
Victorville Sheriff’s Department and Victorville District Bureau of Victim Services.
Such injuries were sustained on October 22, 2022, and November 7, 2022, arising from
the removal of her three children from her custody and the issuance of a criminal
protective order (CPO) in Capers’s favor. She alleges she suffered mental suffering and
anguish due to the removal of the children from her care.
Capers was obligated under section 911.2 to first file the claim with the
government entity involved before filing suit in the trial court, and she failed to do so
during the applicable time period. Capers filed a late application to file her claim with
the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County (Board) under section 911.4. The
application was denied, and Capers filed the Petition in the trial court seeking to overturn
this decision. At a hearing on March 26, 2025, at which Capers did not appear, the trial
court denied the Petition.
Capers claims on appeal that the trial court erred by denying the Petition as
follows: (A) The trial court committed reversible error by failing to articulate clear
grounds for dismissal; (B) Denial of relief under § 946.6 constitutes an abuse of
discretion due to Capers’s incapacitation; (C) County’s malfeasance regarding the CPO
led to direct and foreseeable harm; (D) The trial court erred by neglecting Capers’s status
1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
as a victim of crime and County’s obstruction; and (E) The doctrine of equitable estoppel
should bar County from asserting a timeliness defense. In response, County contends this
court should dismiss the appeal because Capers abandoned the Petition in the lower court
by failing to appear at the hearing deciding the Petition. In the alternative, the trial court
properly denied the Petition. We find that Capers has waived her claims A, C, D, and E
by failing to provide proper citations to legal authority and the record to support her
claims. Further, the trial court properly denied the Petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PETITION TO FILE LATE CLAIM
Capers filed the Petition on December 17, 2024. She petitioned the court to
relieve her from the government entity filing requirements under section 945.4. Capers
readily admitted that she did not file a timely claim pursuant to section 911.2 but stated it
was a result of being physically and mentally incapacitated during the entire six months
during which she was to file the claim. The trial court should excuse the failure to timely
file her claim and grant the Petition.
Capers alleged that she had a claim against County’s employees based on injuries
she sustained on October 22, 2022, and November 7, 2022. She insisted she had
damages for mental suffering and anguish, and her three children, who were removed
from her custody, were also suffering. On August 12, 2023, Capers filed a written claim
pursuant to section 911.2 with the Board. The Board denied the application on
September 27, 2023, as a late claim without excuse.
3
Capers also alleged in the Petition that she was unable to timely file the section
911.2 government claim based on her physical and mental incapacity. During this
“time,” she was fleeing domestic violence and speaking on the phone with her children
from New Jersey. She was staying in an emergency shelter. She moved back to
California in March 2024, as an “unhoused person.” She had been spending time trying
to find employment and housing since she returned to California. She alleged that
County would not be prejudiced by the two-year delay.
Capers attached to the Petition the “Application for Leave to Present Late Claim”
(all caps omitted; hereafter, the Application) that she presented to the Board on August
11, 2023. She stated in the application that the cause of action accrued on October 20,
2022. She attached as an exhibit her claim seeking five million dollars. She alleged “
‘Malicious Prosecution, use of excessive or unreasonable force. Harassment and
Discrimination per Victorville City Police report #172212347.’ ” The claim was denied
by the Board on May 11, 2023, based on it “not [being] presented within six (6) months
after the event or occurrence as required by law.” Capers was advised that she could ask
for leave to file a late claim pursuant to sections 911.4 and 946.6. Capers also included
the CPO filed on November 7, 2022, restraining Deandre M. from contacting Capers.
B. OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION
County filed opposition to the Petition on February 7, 2025. County also sought
attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.
County first claimed that Capers had previously filed a petition to file a late claim
on March 8, 2024, in the trial court. Several hearings were continued in order for Capers
4
to produce evidence that she was incapacitated during the six-month filing period. On
September 12, 2024, the first petition was denied for failure to produce evidence of her
incapacitation during the entire filing period. The claims in the Petition were the same.
The Petition was barred by issue preclusion. Attached to the opposition by County was
the prior application to file a late claim and the denial.2
In the alternative, County argued the Petition should be denied as Capers failed to
present any evidence of incapacity for the entire time she was allotted to present a
government claim. Capers failed to show she was completely incapacitated from October
22, 2022, to April 22, 2023. Further, County would be prejudiced by the delay.
C. CAPERS’S REPLY TO COUNTY’S OPPOSITION
Capers filed her reply to County’s opposition on March 24, 2025. Capers insisted
the Petition was not barred as she had newly discovered evidence. She insisted that the
newly discovered evidence substantiates her claim of incapacity to timely file a
government claim, which was not adequately addressed in the prior proceedings. The
trial court should consider the merits of the new evidence presented.
Capers insisted that she was a victim of domestic violence and experienced
significant trauma. She had ongoing threats to her safety. This severely impacted her
ability to meet the standards for filing her government claim. The trial court should be
flexible in applying the requirements of presenting a government claim so that justice is
served. The trial court should take into account that she was a victim of domestic
2 County does not make a claim that the instant appeal should be denied based on
the prior filing.
5
violence. She insisted that she provided medical documentation and credible evidence
that she suffered from significant physical and emotional challenges stemming from her
experiences with domestic violence. The trauma and fear led to her lack of
understanding regarding legal processes.
Capers concluded that she had met her burden of demonstrating that her failure to
file a timely government tort claim was a direct result of her incapacity. Further, County
failed to establish how the filing of the late claim would be prejudicial. Finally, Capers
opposed the award of attorney’s fees. No medical evidence was attached to the reply.
D. RULING
The matter was heard on March 26, 2025. The hearing was not reported. Capers
was not present.3 Pursuant to the minute order, the trial court “having read and
considered the moving papers, opposition and reply,” denied the Petition. County was
ordered to give notice. County gave notice on June 25, 2025, of the denial of the
Petition. Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal on August 19, 2025, from the March 26,
2025, denial of the Petition.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff presents five claims that the trial court erred by denying the Petition.
3 Capers was present at a hearing on February 18, 2025, at which the trial court
set the date for the hearing on the Petition for March 26, 2025. In addition, County sent
notice of the proceeding to Capers on February 21, 2025.
6
A. RELEVANT LAW
“The Government Claims Act ... ‘establishes certain conditions precedent to the
filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a
claim for money or damages with the public entity. (§ 911.2.) The failure to do so bars
the plaintiff from bringing suit against that entity.’ ” (California Restaurant Management
Systems. v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591.) Section 911.2,
subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for
death or for injury to person or to personal property ... shall be presented ... not later than
six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”
“ ‘Requiring a [claimant] ... to first present a claim to the entity, before seeking
redress in court, affords the entity an opportunity to promptly remedy the condition
giving rise to the injury, thus minimizing the risk of similar harm to others. [Citations.]
[It] also permits the public entity to investigate while tangible evidence is still available,
memories are fresh, and witnesses can be located. [Citations.] Fresh notice of a claim
permits early assessment by the public entity, allows its governing board to settle
meritorious disputes without incurring the added cost of litigation, and gives it time to
engage in appropriate budgetary planning. [Citations.] The notice requirement ... thus is
based on a recognition of the special status of public entities, according them greater
protections than nonpublic entity defendants, because ... public entities ... will incur costs
that must ultimately be borne by the taxpayers.’ ” (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa
Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991, fn. 8.)
7
Section 911.4, subdivision (a) provides, “When a claim that is required by Section
911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is
not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for
leave to present that claim.” Subdivision (b) of section 911.4 provides, “The application
shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section
915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of
action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed
claim shall be attached to the application.” Here, Capers’s application to file a late claim
was denied after consideration by the Board under section 911.6.
Section 946.6, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part, “if an application for
leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a
petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section
945.4.[4] The proper court for filing the petition is a superior court that would be a proper
court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates.” The
petition in the superior court must show “(1) That application was made to the board
under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. [¶] (2) The reason for failure to
present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. [¶] (3) The
4 Section 945.4 provides in pertinent part, “no suit for money or damages may be
brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be
presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor
has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been
deemed to have been rejected by the board.”
8
information required by Section 910.”5 (§ 946.6, subd. (b).) The court will relieve the
petitioner from the requirements of section 945.4 if, among other reasons, “[t]he person
who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally
incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the
claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time.”
(§ 946.6, subd. (c)(4).)
“To establish incapacity as a justification for relief from the TCA[6] requirements,
a claimant must establish that he or she ‘was physically or mentally incapacitated during
all of the [six-month period] for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that
disability failed to present a claim during that time.’ ” (Barragan, supra, 184
Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.) “[I]f the claimant’s condition was such that the claimant could
have authorized another to file the claim on his or her behalf, the claimant was not
incapacitated from filing the claim. [Citation.] In other words, the type of disability
which justifies relief from the TCA on the grounds of incapacity is an all-encompassing
disability which prevents the claimant from even authorizing another to file a claim for
the claimant.” (Id. at p. 1384.)
5 Section 910 sets forth the contents of the claim including providing the date the
claim occurred and the name and address of the claimant.
6 “TCA” stands for Torts Claims Act. (Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (2010)
184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1376 (Barragan).) The Government Claims Act and Tort Claims
Act are used interchangeably to describe the claim filing requirements against a
government entity, but the Government Claims Act is a “more appropriate label.”
(Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147, fn. 1.)
9
The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that one of the requirements under section 946.6, subdivision (c), has been met. (Munoz
v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777-1778.) “An order denying relief
from the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is
appealable.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64.) “We
review the ruling on a petition under section 946.6 for abuse of discretion.” (Id. at p. 64)
“We ‘cannot arbitrarily substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.’ ” (Barragan,
supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382.)
B. WAIVER
Initially, Capers’s opening brief is inadequate. Capers provides in the Statement
of the Case that she seeks reversal of the trial court’s finding that she failed to establish
under section 946.6 that she was excused from complying with the government claims
prerequisites for filing a claim. She provides that her underlying claim is based on
“egregious law enforcement negligence and the submission of false reports regarding”
her “mental health status,” and a “5150” hold. She then refers to the “action’ which was
based “solely on unfounded allegations from a restrained individual” who was the subject
of a CPO. She provides a citation to the record for the CPO. She then states that the
Petition was denied on March 26, 2025, without the trial court providing clear, articulated
legal reasoning, but provides no citation in the record as to the denial by the trial court.
In the Statement of Facts, she again cites only to the CPO, which she alleges
resulted in her 5150 hold, causing her substantial emotional and psychological harm.
This also resulted in the removal of her children. She again refers to the denial by the
10
trial court of the Petition without any citation to the record. The only other citation she
makes is to the affidavit of the deputy clerk in the clerk’s transcript at page 139, claiming
that her right to records had been actively obstructed by the San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Department.
A “fundamental principle of appellate procedure [is] that a trial court judgment is
ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the
basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error
that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle
of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’
[Citation.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor
of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018)
5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), provides that each brief filed in the
appellate court must “Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the
volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” “ ‘It is the duty of a
party to support the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record, which
includes providing exact page citations.’ [Citation.] If a party fails to support an
argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be
stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived.” (Duarte v. Chino Community
Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) “We may and do ‘disregard conclusory
arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the
11
reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt.’ ”
(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153.)
Capers first argues on appeal in Section A of her brief that the trial court
committed reversible error by failing to articulate clear grounds for the denial of the
Petition. She insists the March 26, 2025, order by the trial court fails to articulate the
reasons for the denial. She provides no citations to the record or legal authority
supporting that the trial court had to provide its reasons on the record. This argument is
waived by failing to properly provide a citation to the record of the ruling by the trial
court and failing to provide a proper citation to legal authority requiring that the trial
court state its reasons in denying the Petition.
We also note that even if we were to review Capers’s claim, having reviewed the
record, she was not present at the hearing when the trial court denied the Petition.7 It is
conceivable the trial court gave adequate reasons for the denial on the record and Capers
has provided no legal authority supporting that the trial court had to provide written
findings. The claim in Section A is waived.
Capers makes a further argument in the opening brief in Section C that County
obtained the CPO in her favor but never notified her of the CPO. This led to harm based
on D.M., the subject of the CPO, being released from police custody. The trial court
erred by failing to consider this ongoing negligence. Capers conclusorily states that
7 County argues that Capers abandoned the Petition by failing to appear at the
hearing. County provides no legal authority to support its claim that the failure of Capers
to appear at the hearing forfeited her right to file an appeal. We will not consider the
argument.
12
County was negligent in withholding information about the CPO. Capers does not cite to
the record to support this claim. The citation to the affidavit by the clerk of the superior
court does not support her claim, as it only provides what was available to be included in
the appellate record. It is unclear how County was withholding records, and there is no
evidence regarding whether she was notified of the CPO. It is not this court’s job to
comb the record to support Capers’s claim or make legal arguments in her favor.
(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [“ ‘The reviewing
court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of
error or grounds to support the judgment’ ”].) Capers also has failed to provide legal
authority to support that this would excuse her failure to comply with the government
claims requirements. The claim in Section C of the opening brief is waived.
In Section D of the opening brief, Capers claims that the trial court erred by
neglecting her status as a victim of a crime and County’s obstruction. She claims she was
documented as a crime victim, which “imposed a heightened duty of care upon
[County].” Further, County withheld police reports from her, which impacted her ability
to comply with the government entity claim timelines. Capers provides no citation to the
record to support her claim that she was a crime victim or that police reports were
withheld by County. Further, she provides no legal authority to support her claim that
this excused her compliance with section 911.2. The claim in Section D has been
waived.
Finally, in Section E, Capers claims that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should
bar County from asserting a timeliness defense. Again, she makes conclusory allegations
13
that County withheld information about the CPO and delayed producing critical public
records but fails to cite to such evidence in the record. Although she does cite to legal
authority, she fails to provide this court with citations to the record showing evidence
supporting such claim. The issue in Section E has been waived.
C. MERITS
Based on the foregoing, having found that Capers has waived her claims in
Section A, C, D, and E, the only issue that appears to have been preserved for review on
appeal is in Section B, in which she claims the trial court abused its discretion by denying
the Petition brought under section 946.6. Based on our own review of the record
provided, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Petition.
Capers claims that her failure to meet the statutory deadline was caused by “severe and
emotional incapacitation.” As previously stated, in order to show incapacity, Capers had
to show she “ ‘was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the [six-month
period] for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a
claim during that time.’ ” (Barragan, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.) Further, if she
was able to authorize another person to file the claim, she was not incapacitated. (Ibid.)
Here, Capers presented only conclusory statements made by Capers in the Petition
that she was “incapacitated.” She did not present any evidence to the trial court showing
she was mentally or physically incapable of filing a timely claim as required by section
911.2 other than her own statements. She certainly did not present evidence that there
was no one else who could file the claim on her behalf. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion by finding that she failed to meet her burden pursuant to section 646.6 and
14
properly denied the Petition. (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th
at p. 64.)
Based on the record before this court, the trial court properly determined that the
Petition should not be granted.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying the Petition is affirmed in full. Respondent is
awarded its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
15
