Menefield v. Bd. of Parole Hearings, 13 Cal. App. 5th 387

Petitioner, a life inmate, challenged California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2402(c)(6), which permits the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate's "serious misconduct in prison or jail" as evidence of parole unsuitability.
Petitioner argued the regulation lacks clarity because it does not define "serious misconduct," leaving prisoners unaware that minor or administrative infractions might justify parole denial.
The trial court sustained the board's demurrer, holding § 2402(c)(6) is clear: subdivision (b) allows consideration of all relevant institutional misconduct and a related regulation (§ 3315) defines "serious" rule violations.
On appeal petitioner also sought leave to amend his petition to add a facial constitutional vagueness claim against § 2402(c)(6).
The appellate court reviewed demurrer standards and administrative-regulation clarity/vagueness doctrines and affirmed dismissal, concluding § 2402(c)(6) is sufficiently clear and amendment to plead a vagueness claim would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2402(c)(6) lacks required clarity under the APA	§ 2402(c)(6) fails the clarity requirement because it does not define "serious misconduct," so prisoners can't know that minor/admin infractions may be used to deny parole	Regulation is clear when read with the rest of § 2402 (nonexclusive guidelines) and § 3315, which defines serious rule violations applicable to life prisoners	Court held regulation is clear: § 3315 and § 2402 together give those affected notice and guidance
Whether the court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add a vagueness claim	Petitioner sought leave to add a facial vagueness claim asserting § 2402(c)(6) is unconstitutionally vague	Board argued petitioner pleaded no factual basis and amendment would be futile because the regulation is not vague in context	Court held petitioner failed to show a reasonable possibility amendment would cure defects; denied leave to amend

Milligan v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation Dist., 120 Cal.App.4th 1 (app. court) (demurrer and standard of review)
Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003) (pleading assumptions and legal conclusions on demurrer)
Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (leave to amend after demurrer)
People v. Superior Court (Caswell), 46 Cal.3d 381 (Cal. 1988) (vagueness/due process standards)
Cranston v. City of Richmond, 40 Cal.3d 755 (Cal. 1985) (vagueness: examine regulation in context)
In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (parole suitability framework)
In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (§ 2402 guidelines are general and panels have discretion)
In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (paramount consideration is current threat to public safety)