The California Tort Claims Act: Why You Have Just 6 Months to File a Claim

The California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) establishes one of the most restrictive procedural requirements in the United States for individuals seeking to sue government entities, including police departments. Under this legislation, codified in Government Code sections 810-996.6, victims of police misconduct must file an administrative claim within six months of the incident or permanently forfeit their right to pursue state law claims against the government entity.

This requirement represents a significant departure from standard civil litigation procedures and creates a procedural barrier that has prevented numerous legitimate claims from proceeding to court. Understanding the CTCA’s requirements is essential for anyone considering legal action against California law enforcement agencies.

Legal Foundation and Purpose

The CTCA operates on the principle of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that traditionally protected government entities from lawsuits. Under this framework, government entities cannot be sued unless they explicitly consent to such litigation. The CTCA represents California’s conditional consent to be sued, but only when plaintiffs comply with specific procedural requirements.

The legislation serves multiple governmental interests: it provides early notice of potential claims, allows agencies to investigate incidents while evidence remains fresh, and creates opportunities for early settlement negotiations. However, the strict timeline requirements often favor government entities over individual claimants who may be unaware of these procedural obligations.

The Six-Month Administrative Claim Requirement

Scope of the Deadline

The CTCA requires that administrative claims for personal injury or wrongful death be filed within six months of the incident date. This deadline applies to all claims against California state agencies, counties, cities, and other public entities, including:

• Municipal police departments
• County sheriff’s offices
• California Highway Patrol
• University police departments
• Transit police agencies

The six-month period begins on the date of the incident, not when the claimant discovers their injury or when they decide to pursue legal action. This differs from traditional statute of limitations periods, which often begin when the plaintiff discovers the harm.

Critical Distinction from Lawsuit Filing

The administrative claim requirement is separate from and precedes the filing of an actual lawsuit. Even after filing the required administrative claim, plaintiffs must wait for the government entity’s response before proceeding to court. The administrative claim serves as a prerequisite to litigation rather than the initiation of litigation itself.

Required Elements of Administrative Claims

Mandatory Information

Administrative claims must contain specific information to be considered valid under the CTCA:

Claimant Information:

• Full name and address of the person making the claim
• Mailing address where all notices should be sent

Incident Details:

• Exact date of the occurrence
• Specific location where the incident took place
• Detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the incident

Harm and Damages:

• General description of the injury, damage, or loss incurred
• If the claim is for less than $10,000, the exact amount must be specified
• For claims exceeding $10,000, an approximate amount may be provided

Responsible Parties:

• Names of public employees involved, if known
• Identification of the government entity being claimed against

Filing Location Requirements

The location for filing administrative claims depends on the specific government entity involved:

Municipal Police Departments: Claims must be filed with the city clerk’s office of the relevant municipality.

County Sheriff’s Offices: Claims are typically filed with the county clerk or county counsel’s office.

State Agencies: Claims against state entities, including the California Highway Patrol, must be filed with the State Controller’s Office or the specific agency’s headquarters.

Filing with the incorrect entity can result in claim rejection on procedural grounds, making it essential to identify the proper filing location before the deadline expires.

Administrative Review Process

Government Entity Response Timeline

Once an administrative claim is properly filed, the government entity has 45 days to respond. The entity may:

1. Accept the claim (rare occurrence)
2. Reject the claim (most common response)
3. Take no action (deemed a rejection after 45 days)

Post-Response Procedures

If a claim is rejected or deemed rejected through inaction, the claimant has six months from the date of rejection to file a lawsuit in court. This creates a secondary deadline that must also be carefully monitored.

When claims are accepted, which occurs infrequently, the parties enter into settlement negotiations. However, acceptance does not guarantee payment, as the final settlement terms must still be negotiated.

Consequences of Missing the Deadline

Permanent Bar to State Law Claims

Failure to file an administrative claim within the six-month deadline permanently bars all state law claims against the government entity. This prohibition cannot be waived and applies regardless of the merit of the underlying claim or the severity of the harm suffered.

The consequences extend beyond individual tort claims to include:

• Claims for civil rights violations under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act
• Claims for violations of the California Constitution
• State law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Negligence claims against the government entity

Impact on Available Legal Theories

State law claims often provide advantages that federal claims do not offer:

Direct Entity Liability: State law allows for direct claims against government entities under theories of vicarious liability, whereas federal Section 1983 claims require proof of municipal policy or custom.

Absence of Qualified Immunity: State law claims are not subject to the qualified immunity doctrine that frequently shields individual officers from federal civil rights liability.

Different Damages Framework: State law may provide for different types of damages or calculations than federal law.

Limited Exceptions to the Filing Deadline

Statutory Exceptions

The CTCA provides narrow exceptions that may allow late filing of administrative claims:

Incapacity: Claims may be filed late if the claimant was physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to file within the deadline period.

Minor Status: If the claimant was a minor without a legal guardian at the time of the incident, extended filing periods may apply.

Death of Claimant: When the claimant dies, their estate may file a claim within one year of the death.

Estoppel: In rare circumstances, if the government entity had actual knowledge of the claim and would not be prejudiced by late filing, courts may allow late claims to proceed.

Practical Limitations

These exceptions are construed narrowly by California courts and should not be relied upon as alternatives to timely filing. The burden of proving that an exception applies rests entirely with the claimant and requires substantial documentation.

Relationship to Federal Civil Rights Claims

Section 1983 Claims Remain Available

The CTCA’s requirements do not affect federal civil rights claims filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. These claims:

• May be filed directly in federal or state court
• Have a two-year statute of limitations in California
• Do not require compliance with the CTCA’s administrative claim process
• Allow claims against individual officers and government entities under different legal standards

Strategic Considerations

Most experienced civil rights attorneys file both federal and state claims when possible, as they provide different legal theories and remedies. The availability of federal claims serves as an important safety net when CTCA deadlines are missed, though it does not fully compensate for the loss of state law remedies.

Practical Guidance for Potential Claimants

Immediate Post-Incident Actions

Individuals involved in incidents with law enforcement should take several immediate steps to preserve their legal rights:

Medical Documentation: Seek immediate medical attention to document injuries and establish a medical record of harm.

Evidence Preservation: Photograph injuries, the incident scene, and any relevant physical evidence before it can be altered or destroyed.

Witness Information: Obtain contact information for any witnesses to the incident.

Official Records: Request copies of police reports, body camera footage, and other official documentation through California Public Records Act requests.

Legal Consultation Urgency

The six-month deadline makes immediate legal consultation essential. Attorneys experienced in police misconduct cases can:

• Ensure compliance with CTCA filing requirements
• Conduct preliminary investigations while evidence remains available
• Advise on the interaction between state and federal claims
• Handle the technical aspects of claim preparation and filing

Common Filing Errors

Several common mistakes can invalidate administrative claims:

Incorrect Filing Location: Filing with the wrong government entity or office can result in procedural rejection.

Insufficient Detail: Claims lacking adequate description of the incident or damages may be rejected for failing to provide required information.

Premature Settlement Discussions: Attempting to negotiate directly with government entities before filing the required administrative claim can waive important procedural rights.

Role of Legal Representation

Specialized Expertise Required

The technical requirements of the CTCA, combined with the complexity of police misconduct cases, make experienced legal representation essential. Attorneys specializing in civil rights law understand:

• The specific procedural requirements for different types of government entities
• How to gather and preserve evidence within tight timeframes
• The interaction between state administrative requirements and federal civil rights law
• Effective strategies for presenting claims to maximize the likelihood of favorable outcomes

Contingency Fee Arrangements

Most civil rights attorneys handle police misconduct cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay attorney fees only if the case results in a favorable settlement or judgment. This arrangement makes legal representation accessible to individuals who might not otherwise afford attorney fees during the claims process.

Legislative and Reform Considerations

Criticism of Current Framework

The CTCA has faced criticism from civil rights advocates who argue that the six-month deadline is unnecessarily restrictive and disproportionately harms victims of police misconduct. Critics note that:

• Victims may be physically or emotionally incapacitated following traumatic encounters with law enforcement
• The deadline is shorter than most statute of limitations periods
• The requirement is not well-known among the general public
• Missing the deadline permanently bars legitimate claims regardless of their merit

Reform Proposals

Various reform proposals have been suggested, including extending the filing deadline, providing better public notice of the requirement, or creating additional exceptions for cases involving police misconduct. However, no significant legislative changes have been enacted to date.

Comparative Context

National Perspective

California’s six-month administrative claim requirement is among the most restrictive in the United States. Many other states either do not require administrative claims for civil rights violations or provide longer filing periods. This makes California’s framework particularly challenging for victims of police misconduct compared to similar cases in other jurisdictions.

Federal Contrast

Federal civil rights claims under Section 1983 do not require administrative exhaustion, allowing plaintiffs to proceed directly to federal court. The contrast between federal and state requirements highlights the additional procedural burden that California law places on civil rights claimants.

Key Takeaways

The California Tort Claims Act creates a significant procedural hurdle for victims of police misconduct seeking to hold government entities accountable through state law claims. The six-month administrative claim requirement is strictly enforced and permanently bars state law claims when missed.

Essential points for potential claimants include:

• Immediate Action Required: The six-month deadline begins on the incident date, making prompt legal consultation essential
• Procedural Complexity: Proper filing requires compliance with specific technical requirements that vary by government entity
• Federal Claims Remain Available: Section 1983 claims provide an alternative legal avenue when CTCA deadlines are missed
• Professional Assistance Recommended: The technical nature of CTCA compliance makes experienced legal representation highly advisable

While the CTCA’s requirements present significant challenges, proper understanding and compliance with these procedural requirements remain essential for preserving all available legal remedies in cases involving police misconduct in California.