Manson v. State of California CA2/2
B345846
Cal. Ct. App.
Jan 8, 2026
Check Treatment
Filed 1/8/26 Manson v. State of California CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO


 ARSEN MANSON,                                               B345846

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                24STCV07098)

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
 ET AL.,

      Defendants and
 Respondents.


     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Thomas D. Long, Judge. Affirmed.

         Arsen Manson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Iveta Ovsepyan, Assistant
Attorney General, Elizabeth S. Angres and Tammy Kim, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
                    _______________________
      Plaintiff and appellant Arsen Manson, appearing in propria
persona, appeals from the trial court’s orders sustaining a
demurrer and dismissing his first amended complaint (FAC) with
prejudice as to defendants State of California and Laura
Simpton, a hearing officer with the California Victims
Compensation Board (CVCB) (collectively, respondents).1 We
affirm.
                          DISCUSSION
      The trial court described the FAC as “largely unintelligible”
and “alleg[ing] no facts whatsoever as to any wrongful conduct by
the [respondents] to provide any notice of the conduct or bases for
which they are sued.” That description is accurate, and it also
applies to Manson’s briefs in this appeal.
      This much can be gleaned from the record: In 2013, a jury
convicted Manson of six felony counts related to marijuana
possession and sales. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11360, subd. (a),
11359.) He allegedly served a prison sentence of two years and
10 days.2 In 2017, following the enactment of drug reform laws,
Manson’s convictions were reduced to misdemeanors. (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11361.8, subd. (e).) In 2019, the trial court dismissed
his convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4a, subd. (a) [allowing


1    “The order sustaining the demurrers . . . is not itself
appealable, but review . . . may be had in an appeal from the
ultimate order of dismissal.” (Leader v. Health Industries of
America, Inc. (2001)
89 Cal.App.4th 603, 611
.)

2     In the FAC, Manson claims to have served one year of
probation. A prior appellate court decision included in the record
(People v. Manson (Nov. 15, 2018, B284591) [nonpub. opn.]) says
Manson “was not granted probation on his convictions.”




                                 2
dismissal of misdemeanor convictions if the defendant served his
sentence and met other statutory conditions].)3 His criminal
record was sealed in 2022. (§ 851.93.)
       Prior to March 2023, Manson filed a CVCB “claim for
compensation as an erroneously convicted person[.]” On April 21,
2023, Simpton denied his claim, explaining, inter alia, that (1)
Manson was ineligible for the compensation he claimed because
“none of [his] challenged convictions were reversed by habeas or
sections 1473.6 or 14[]73.7” (§ 4900, subd. (b)) and his criminal
“records were sealed based solely upon the absence of a conviction
resulting from the arrest and not due to any finding of factual
innocence”; (2) the claim was incomplete and procedurally
deficient; and (3) the claim “[wa]s successive because [his]
previous claim . . . was likewise rejected upon the same grounds.”
Simpton informed Manson that he could appeal the CVCB’s
decision “by filing a petition for writ of mandate . . . within . . .
90[] day[s].”
       On March 21, 2024, Manson, acting in propria persona,
sued the State of California and Simpton. Six months later, he
filed the FAC.4 Respondents demurred to the FAC in its entirety,
arguing, among other things, that the pleading was “so
ambiguous and unintelligible that [respondents] are unable to
reasonably respond.”




3     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise noted.

4     The FAC added several other defendants, including law
enforcement and judicial officers who had some part in Manson’s
legal history. None of the new defendants are part of this appeal.




                                 3
       After a hearing, the trial court sustained the demurrer
because the pleadings were “largely unintelligible[,]” procedurally
flawed, and time-barred. Because Manson “did not show how he
c[ould] amend to remedy the defects, no leave to amend [wa]s
granted[.]” The court thus entered an order of dismissal, with
prejudice, as to respondents.
       Manson timely appealed. However, his appellate briefs are
as defective as his trial court pleadings. In addition to being
disorganized and incoherent, the briefs fail to comply with basic
appellate principles.5
       Most crucially, Manson argues only that (1) “the origin[al]
trial court” committed errors during his 2013 criminal trial, and
(2) opposing counsel erred in her description of the drug reform
law that led to the reduction and dismissal of Manson’s felony
convictions.6 He does not identify any legal errors committed by
the trial court in this case when it sustained the demurrer
without leave to amend and dismissed it. (People v. Sanghera
(2006)
139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573
 [“Perhaps the most
fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment
challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the
appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.”].)



5     Manson’s choice to act as his own attorney on appeal does
not entitle him to any leniency as to the rules of practice and
procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994)
8 Cal.4th 975
, 984–
985.)

6     Even assuming arguendo that respondent’s counsel so
erred, that would not support reversal. The nature of these drug
reform laws was not relevant to the order dismissing the FAC for
procedural deficiencies in the pleading.




                                4
      Absent a showing of relevant legal error, the challenged
order must be affirmed.
                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own
costs on appeal.



                                         _____________________, J.
                                         SIGGINS*
We concur:



________________________, P. J.
LUI



________________________, J.
CHAVEZ




      * Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First

Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.




                                  5