Martin v. People
| Decision Date | 07 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | A144080 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | AARON PATRICK MARTIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCS042959)
Aaron Patrick Martin, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the superior court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate. Martin sought a writ that would have ordered respondents, who are prison officials, to either return certain personal property supposedly taken from him improperly in the course of his transfer to the California Medical Facility (CMF) and then to the High Desert State Prison (HDSP), or pay compensation for the value of this property. Martin contends this missing property includes legal papers, photographs, clothing, music items, hobby materials and other sundry items, which he has valued in total at $29,956.07. The superior court denied Martin's petition, concluding that he already had an adequate remedy at law, a civil action for conversion, and that he did not prove he lost all of his belongings or that respondents acted improperly. On appeal, Martin makes a hodgepodge of arguments, none of which establish any error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
On January 1, 2012 Martin filed an inmate appeal about numerous items of his personal property that he claimed were not returned to him upon his transfers in December 2011 to the CMF and then to the HDSP. He wrote that he was transferred to the HDSP Martin also asserted that he requested, but was denied, a copy of the 1083 form. He acknowledged that he received some of his property at the HDSP on December 9, 2011, with an attached 1083 form, "[b]ut my legal work was mixed up in 4 boxes when it fits in 2." He asserted that he was missing numerous items, such as a television, radio, fan, lamp, CDs, clothes, food and photographs. He attached a two-page list of these items to his appeal, which items he estimated were worth $30,377, including what he indicated as an unknown number of pages of legal work, which he valued at $25,000, and 30 family photographs.
A correctional sergeant interviewed Martin about his appeal and on March 19, 2012, Associate Warden M. Voong issued a written decision. Voong partially granted Martin's appeal after reviewing Martin's inmate property card and receipts. Voong stated:
On April 4, 2012, Martin filed for a second level appeal review of his matter. He contended that a 1083 form (it is unclear which of two he was referring to) was prepared after he was transferred and asked, "how could this be?" According to Martin, Correctional Officer Galvan had allowed his "bunkie" to pack his property, leading to his bunkie stealing "many things," and neither Galvan or a second correctional officer, Whitten, who prepared another 1083 form of Martin's property after his transfer from the CMF to the HDSP, were present for "the interview," presumably the one conducted with Martin about his appeal, although Martin had requested they be so.
On May 16, 2012, the CMF Warden issued a written decision partially granting Martin's second level appeal. The decision states that a lieutenant interviewed Correctional Officer Galvan, who "reported that he inventoried all of the property that was in/on [Martin's] locker and immediate bed area on December 2, 2011," and that Galvan authored a CDC 1083 form dated December 2, 2011. Further, the lieutenant and Officer Whitten searched through two boxes of property not yet sent to the HDSP for Martin and compared this property to Martin's inmate property card. Based on this review, CMF was going to send to Martin at the HDSP a "KTV, typewriter, extension cord, radio shack AM/FM CD clock radio, adapter, stereo jack, headphone cables, harmonica, t-shirt, nail clippers, mirror, [and] two (2) pair of glasses religious books." However, the CMF would not return certain items not listed on Martin's property card, they being two bathrobes, a language translator, a lamp, Sony headphones, a brush, and a spell corrector.
The second level appeal decision also quotes two regulations. First, " '[i]n permitting inmates to possess items of personal property while they are incarcerated, the department does not accept liability for the theft, loss, damage, or destruction of such property resulting from the intentional or careless act or activities of any inmate' " (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3193, subd. (a)); second, " '[t]he Department shall accept liability for the loss or destruction of inmate personal property when it is established that such loss or destruction results from employee action.' " (Id., subd. (b).)
On June 12, 2012, Martin filed for a third level appeal review. He stated that some of his property had been returned to him, but his television was poorly packed and both it and his radio were broken. He asserted that Officer Whitten should have verified they worked when he inventoried Martin's property. Also, Martin stated, he was missing numerous items, including legal documents, music items, clothes, hobby materials and sundries, and a typewriter and shoes that the second level review decision stated were returned to him. He contended he could possess certain property items that were unlisted on his inmate property card because they "were given to me via granted 602's [inmate appeals]," asserted that Officer Galvan was not asked if he allowed an inmate to pack Martin's property, leading to the theft of some of it, and stated he could provide "several witnesses" to show Galvan did so.
On August 24, 2012, J. Lozano, Chief of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Office of Appeals, issued a third level decision denying Martin's appeal, stating:
In October 2012, the Victims Compensation Government Claims Board (Claims Board) received a claim from Martin for $30,377.15 in compensation for personal property to which he was entitled, but had not received. The Claims Board wrote to Martin that his claim was incomplete and untimely. Martin responded that he could not file his claim earlier because he understood he had to first exhaust his administrative remedies with prison authorities. On January 25, 2013, the Claims Board informedMartin that its staff recommended denial of the claim as untimely and that it would adopt this recommendation on February 21, 2013.
In March 2013, Martin, appearing in propria persona, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and/or writ of mandate in the Solano County Superior Court regarding his personal property. In May 2013, the court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, construed the petition as seeking a writ of mandate and issued an order to show cause. However, on July 18, 2013, the court ruled that it had acted erroneously because Martin had not complied with the procedural rules for summons outlined in Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.50 and 412.10 et seq., and denied the petition without prejudice.
On January 28, 2014, Martin filed a new petition for writs of prohibition and mandate against Vimal Singh, the warden of the CMF, and Officers Galvan and Whitten.1 Martin sought reversal of the denial of his inmate appeals for the recovery of his personal property, contending that prison authorities allowed another inmate to steal his property and improperly withheld property in the course of his transfers to the CMF and the HDSP in December 2011.
Specifically, Martin alleged that on December 1, 2011, he was admitted to the hospital because he was suffering from a bad diabetic reaction. At that time, Officer Galvan "allowed another inmate to pack petitioner's property in violation of policy, which was done unsupervised and allowed the inmate time to steal property." On December 6, 2011, Martin was transferred to the HDSP. At the CMF the next day, Officer Whitten repacked Martin's personal property and purportedly fabricated a property receipt that left off...
To continue reading
Request your trial