Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA5
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 204
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Flores, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, alleges correctional officers seized his television during a 2009 cell search because it lacked an engraved name/ID/serial number.
- Flores pursued inmate appeals (denied) and filed a government claim; he later sought a writ of mandate seeking return or compensation for the television.
- Exhibits indicated the television was treated as contraband because it lacked identifying marks and could not be linked to his property receipt by serial number.
- Defendants demurred to the amended petition, arguing Flores had an adequate remedy at law (e.g., conversion action) and no clear, present, ministerial duty required return/compensation for contraband.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; the appellate court ordered a nunc pro tunc judgment of dismissal and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of demurrer order | Flores treated minute order as appealable judgment | Demurrer order without signed judgment is nonappealable; court should enter judgment | Appellate court directed trial court to enter judgment nunc pro tunc and treated the notice of appeal as to that judgment |
| Adequacy of remedy at law (availability of mandamus) | Mandate appropriate to compel return/compensation | Conversion or civil action provides plain, speedy, adequate remedy | Mandamus not available because Flores did not show absence of adequate legal remedy; conversion action could provide relief |
| Existence of clear, present, ministerial duty to return/compensate | CDCR regs (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15) and policy impose duty to return property or accept liability for employee-caused loss | Regulations allow seizure of unregistered/contraband property and do not create a mandatory duty to return contraband to a particular inmate | No clear, present, ministerial duty alleged; seizure as contraband distinguishes this case from bailee-type claims like Escamilla |
| Denial of leave to amend / abuse of discretion | Flores could amend to allege ownership or non-contraband status | No indication Flores possessed facts to cure pleading defects | Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; no reasonable possibility amendment would show non-contraband ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- Schisler v. Mitchell, 174 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959) (order sustaining demurrer without judgment is nonappealable)
- Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review on demurrer; admit well-pleaded facts)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (presumption of correctness of judgment on appeal)
- People ex rel. Younger v. County of El Dorado, 5 Cal.3d 480 (Cal. 1971) (mandamus elements: ministerial duty and petitioner’s beneficial right)
- Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363 (Cal. 1950) (burden on petitioner to show no adequate remedy at law)
- Escamilla v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 141 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing bailee-type return-of-property claims from contraband seizures)
- Minsky v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 113 (Cal. 1974) (government as bailee when it seizes non-contraband property)
- Manjares v. Newton, 64 Cal.2d 365 (Cal. 1966) (mandamus can correct abuse of discretion when law compels only one result)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)