Menefield v. Bd. Of Parole Hearings, C083356

Petitioner Menefield, a life inmate, challenged Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402(c)(6), which allows the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate's “serious misconduct in prison or jail” when deciding parole suitability.
Menefield argued § 2402(c)(6) lacks clarity because it does not define “serious misconduct,” and claims the board has used the provision to deny parole for minor or administrative infractions.
The trial court sustained the board’s demurrer to Menefield’s clarity challenge without leave to amend, reasoning § 2402 and related § 3315 (defining serious rule violations) put prisoners on notice and permit consideration of minor misconduct as part of overall suitability.
On appeal Menefield renewed the clarity argument and sought leave to amend his petition to add a facial vagueness (due process) claim.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) the regulation is sufficiently clear because § 3315 and the broader § 2402 context supply meaning and notice; (2) Menefield could not reasonably amend to state a successful vagueness claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2402(c)(6) lacks clarity because it does not define “serious misconduct”	Menefield: phrase is undefined, so prisoners lack notice and may be denied parole for minor/administrative infractions	Board: § 3315 and the broader § 2402 context supply a familiar meaning and permit consideration of institutional misconduct	Court: Regulation is clear; § 3315 and § 2402 provide adequate notice and limits
Whether Menefield should be allowed to amend to add a facial vagueness claim	Menefield: should be permitted to amend to allege § 2402(c)(6) is unconstitutionally vague	Board: petition lacks factual specificity to support a vagueness claim; amendment would not cure defect	Court: Denied leave to amend; no reasonable possibility amendment could state a vagueness claim

In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (parole suitability is governed by § 2402 guidelines)
In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (§ 2402 circumstances are general guidelines for the panel)
In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (paramount consideration is current risk to public safety)
People v. Superior Court (Caswell), 46 Cal.3d 381 (due process vagueness standard requires reasonable certainty)
Cranston v. City of Richmond, 40 Cal.3d 755 (vagueness analyzed in factual context; common understanding may supply specificity)
Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (pleading amendment standard on demurrer)