246 Cal. App. 4th 407
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jared M. Villery, a CCI inmate, submitted three CDCR Form 602 grievances in Jan–Feb 2014 and alleges prison staff failed to process them within regulatory time limits.
- Villery filed a verified petition for writ of mandate in superior court, asking the court to compel CDCR to process his grievances under Title 15, Article 8 (Regulations §§3084–3085).
- CDCR demurred, arguing habeas corpus was the more appropriate remedy for an alleged denial of access to the courts; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- The superior court dismissed Villery’s petition on that basis; Villery appealed and this Court treated the order sustaining the demurrer as an appealable judgment.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether habeas corpus is an available remedy “in the ordinary course of law” under Code Civ. Proc. §1086, and whether Villery’s petition adequately alleged a ministerial duty to process Form 602 appeals.
- The Court concluded Villery alleged facts showing CDCR officials had a ministerial duty to screen/process grievances and that mandamus — not habeas corpus — is the ordinary remedy to compel performance of such duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus was an available remedy "in the ordinary course of law" so as to bar mandamus under CCP §1086 | Villery argued mandamus was the proper remedy to compel processing of ministerial duties and he had no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy | CDCR argued alleged denial of access to courts made habeas corpus the more appropriate remedy, so mandamus should be dismissed | Court held habeas corpus was not available "in the ordinary course of law" for compelling CDCR to process grievances; mandamus was the proper remedy |
| Whether petition stated a claim for writ of mandate to enforce ministerial duties in the Regulations | Villery alleged he submitted Form 602s and that response deadlines expired, asserting a present, ministerial right to processing | CDCR contended the relief was essentially a habeas claim and thus improper in a mandamus petition | Court held the petition alleged sufficient facts to state a writ of mandate: CDCR appeals coordinators have ministerial duty to screen/process Form 602s |
| Whether trial court should have construed petition as habeas corpus if that were the proper form | Villery argued court abused discretion by not recharacterizing his petition if habeas were proper | CDCR maintained petition was properly treated as mandamus and demurred on that basis | Court ruled that if habeas were appropriate the court should have recharacterized the petition rather than dismissing on demurrer; dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether sustaining demurrer without leave to amend was proper | Villery sought leave to amend if needed; alleged inability to pursue other remedies | CDCR argued demurrer proper because habeas was available | Court reversed and ordered demurrer overruled (vacating the without-leave dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Menefield v. Foreman, 231 Cal.App.4th 211 (2014) (CDCR appeals coordinators’ screening/processing of Form 602 is a ministerial duty)
- Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 224 Cal.App.4th 199 (2014) (standard of review for demurrer to petition for writ and discussion of adequate alternate remedies)
- Wright v. State of California, 122 Cal.App.4th 659 (2004) (writ of mandate appropriate remedy for delay in third-level inmate appeals review)
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 (1989) (mandate is traditional remedy to compel public officials to perform legal duties)
- Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363 (1950) (general rule that writ will not issue if another adequate remedy exists)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (1993) (habeas corpus described as an extraordinary remedy)