101 Cal.App.5th 317
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Clifford Alan Dilbert, an incarcerated individual, submitted multiple applications and reapplications for clemency/commutation to the Governor of California between 2016 and 2021.
- Dilbert received no acknowledgment or decision from the Governor’s office on his applications or reapplications.
- Dilbert filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel the Governor to process and timely decide his clemency applications.
- The Superior Court sustained the Governor’s demurrer (motion to dismiss) without leave to amend, holding that Dilbert had no due process right or other legal right to have his application processed within any specific timeframe.
- Dilbert appealed the dismissal of his petition.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Governor have a legal duty to process and decide clemency applications within a specific timeframe? | Instructions and due process rights create a duty to act timely on clemency applications. | No constitutional or statutory provision requires timely action or creates such a duty. | No such duty exists; no due process or ministerial duty to decide within any time frame. |
| Do application instructions from the Governor’s office create enforceable obligations to process and decide applications? | The language of the instructions establishes a legal obligation to review and notify. | Instructions do not create a binding, ministerial obligation to act within a certain time. | Application instructions do not create a legally enforceable duty. |
| Does the lack of decision on a clemency application violate due process under the U.S. or California Constitutions? | Failure to act on applications violates due process rights to liberty or statutory benefit. | Clemency is an act of grace; no due process right to consideration or decision. | No due process right to clemency or to procedures for clemency applications. |
| Can a writ of mandate compel discretionary official acts, like clemency decisions? | Sought a writ to compel action based on asserted duty and due process. | Discretionary acts are not subject to writ; no ministerial duty to act as requested. | Writ of mandate cannot compel discretionary acts like executive clemency. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal.3d 480 (Cal. 1971) (defining requirements for issuance of writ of mandate)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole or early release)
- Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981) (no liberty interest in clemency decisions)
- Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (no substantive expectation of clemency)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (pardoning power is discretionary; no right to clemency consideration)
- Santos v. Brown, 238 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (executive clemency is an act of grace, not a statutory right)