Pete v. State Bd. of Ed.

• Citation: 300 P.2d 147,144 Cal.App.2d 38
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 20 August 1956
• Parties: Louis PETE, Jr., Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Respondents. Civ. 16821.

Page 147

300 P.2d 147

144 Cal.App.2d 38

Louis PETE, Jr., Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Respondents.

Civ. 16821.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 20, 1956.

Hearing Denied Oct. 17, 1956.

Louis Pete, Jr., San Francisco, in pro. per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Irving G. Breyer, San Francisco, of counsel, for respondents.

AGEE, Justice pro tem.

On November 29, 1954, petitioner filed his petition for a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco. He appears in propria persona. The principal respondents are the State Board of Education, the Commission of Credentials, the State Personnel Board, and the Qualification Appraisal Board of the State Personnel Board. All respondents jointly interposed a general demurrer, which was sustained without leave to amend. Petitioner appeals from the judgment thereupon entered against him and the order denying him a new trial. Such order is not appealable and the attempted appeal therefrom is dismissed.

The lower court also entered a separate judgment against petitioner upon the issues as raised by the respondents' return to the alternative writ theretofore issued and their answer to the petition. The petitioner's notice of appeal states that he appeals 'from the judgment,' without specifying which judgment. We are treating petitioner's notice of appeal as including both judgments. However, inasmuch as we must take all of the allegations of the petition as being true in considering the judgment entered upon the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, we will consider the appeal in the light of this judgment. This manner of consideration is favorable to the petitioner, since there is nothing in the return and answer or the judgment entered thereon which would aid or assist petitioner's cause.

The petition prays for a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the State Board of Education and the Commission of Credentials to issue to him certain teaching credentials, namely, general secondary, general elementary and school administrator's, and, 'upon issuance of the same,' that certain further actions be ordered to be taken by various respondents. This additional relief prayed for by petitioner is dependent upon whether any of these credentials should be ordered to be issued. Our decision herein that the peremptory writ was properly denied makes it unnecessary to discuss the propriety of such additional relief.

It appears from the allegations of the petition that, before coming to California, petitioner had had five years of teaching experience in the State of Arizona, which state had issued to him the three types of credentials heretofore mentioned. In 1947, petitioner applied to and obtained from respondent Commission of Credentials a general secondary credential. On May 26, 1948, petitioner renewed this credential. Title 5, Admin.Code, § 202. The renewal period expired November 30, 1949. In May or June, 1949, petitioner applied to the Commission of Credentials for a further renewal of this credential; at the same time, he applied for the issuance of a general elementary credential, a junior high school credential and a school administrator's credential. The Commission refused all of these applications on the ground that the petitioner had been dishonorably discharged from the military service of the United States on April 11, 1946. On January 18, 1950, the Commission wrote a letter to petitioner and stated the reason for its action, as follows: 'In considering your case, the Commission of Credentials is of the opinion that it cannot accept your application for renewal of a credential as long as you have a dishonorable discharge from the United States Army. In your application you stated you expected to have your status clarified. As soon as this occurs the Commission will be glad to reconsider your application.' Petitioner did nothing about the action taken by the Commission of Credentials until April or May, 1954, when he wrote a letter to the Commission requesting the renewal of the general secondary credential and the issuance of a general elementary credential. This request was denied in a letter dated May 12, 1954, which stated that he should have appealed from the action taken by the Commission of Credentials in 1949.

Up to this point, we have discussed only the petitioner's dealings with the ...