Kraft v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
| Docket Number | A164495 |
| Decision Date | 27 November 2023 |
| Parties | RANDY STEVEN KRAFT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1902075.
Randy Steven Kraft, a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandate, by which he sought to compel California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to return certain property Kraft contends was improperly "dissipated, " or to pay him $865.68 in lieu of returning the property. We affirm the order denying Kraft's petition.
In October 2014, a disciplinary violation report was filed alleging Kraft had engaged in indecent exposure with a prior indecent exposure incident. Kraft was moved, pending a disciplinary hearing, to a less privileged housing status (from "Grade A" to "Grade B"), one that had more restrictions on the property he could possess.
In connection with the move, and pursuant to an operations manual applicable to condemned inmates, prison staff inventoried Kraft's property to identify items he was not authorized to possess. Staff provided Kraft with a list of the items so he could choose how to dispose of them. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c) [].) Kraft requested that, if he were found guilty of the violation, the majority of the unauthorized property be mailed to a third party and the remaining items be donated or disposed of according to prison procedures. (Ibid. [inmate may choose to mail non-allowable property to a third party, return property to the sender, donate property to a charity or to the prison, or dispose of property according to prison procedures if the property has been rendered useless].)
The unauthorized property was placed in storage until after Kraft was found guilty of the violation (in December 2014) and after his matter was heard by the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) (in January 2015). The ICC imposed a six-month determinate term in Grade B housing which would end automatically on March 13, 2015. Since Kraft was found guilty and the ICC imposed a determinate term on Grade B status, in mid-January 2015, the prison mailed four boxes of Kraft's property to a third party. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c).)[1] The rest of the property apparently was destroyed or donated as Kraft had elected.
Kraft filed an administrative appeal challenging his guilt of the rules violation, and the appeal was granted in part at the second level of review. The reviewer ordered the disciplinary report reissued and reheard because it erroneously stated Kraft had been previously disciplined for indecent exposure when he had not. The rules violation was later dismissed (in March 2016) in the interest of justice.
In further administrative appeal proceedings, Kraft sought return of the confiscated property (or compensation in lieu of return) in light of the prison's dismissal of the violation. The CDCR denied that relief in June 2016.
Three years later, in July 2019, Kraft, proceeding in propria persona, filed a petition for a writ of mandate, asking the trial court to compel the CDCR to return the property at issue or pay him $865.68 in lieu of returning the property. In May 2021, the court overruled the CDCR's demurrer to the petition, and the CDCR filed an answer, arguing on various grounds that Kraft was not entitled to relief.
Kraft filed a reply to the answer, as well as a motion for judgment on his petition for a writ of mandate. Kraft also filed a motion asking the court to deny the CDCR's request for judicial notice of the 2014 condemned inmate operations manual because some portions of the manual were not attached to the CDCR's answer. The CDCR then filed an amended answer that attached the complete manual.
The court construed the amended answer as an opposition to Kraft's motion for judgment. Kraft responded to the amended answer by filing a motion to strike it and by filing a second motion for judgment and a request to present oral argument.
After considering the parties' filings and hearing argument, the court denied Kraft's petition for a writ of mandate. The court found that, under the 2014 condemned inmate manual, the CDCR did not have a ministerial duty to retain Kraft's property pending appeal of his prison disciplinary violation. Kraft sought reconsideration of the court's decision, but the court denied his request. Kraft appealed.
Kraft contends the court erred in denying his petition and should have directed the CDCR to compensate him for the property taken when he was moved from Grade A to Grade B housing. A writ of mandate is available to compel a public agency to perform an act required by law. (People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 339; Flores v. Department of Corrections &Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205.) "To obtain relief, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) no 'plain, speedy, and adequate' alternative remedy exists [citation]; (2)' "a clear, present . . . ministerial duty on the part of the respondent" '; and (3) a correlative' "clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty." '" (Picklesimer, at p. 340; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1086.)
The trial court correctly denied Kraft's petition. Inmates in California prisons "may possess only the personal property . . . as permitted" by regulation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3006; see id., § 3190, subd. (a).) Under San Quentin's operations manual for condemned prisoners, an inmate on Grade B status is not authorized to possess certain types or quantities of property that may be possessed by an inmate in the Grade A classification.
We agree with the trial court that the actions of prison officials here- inventorying and storing Kraft's property when he was first moved to Grade B, and then allowing him to mail it to a third party once he was found guilty and a Grade B determinate term was imposed-comported with section 404 of the 2014 operations manual (the version in effect when the relevant events here occurred).[2] Kraft does not dispute that the charged misconduct was, as alleged in 2014, a "serious rules violation." Nor does he dispute that this alleged violation was "pending" when his property was inventoried, or that in 2015 he was offered the opportunity to have property he was no longer authorized to possess mailed to a third-party after he was initially found guilty of the charge.
This method of handling the property at issue here (allowing Kraft to have it mailed out of the prison) was also consistent with regulations governing unauthorized property generally. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c)(1).) As the court found, section 404 of the 2014 manual did not require officials to continue to store the property while Kraft...
To continue reading
Request your trial