Thompson, In re
| Decision Date | 09 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 14448 and C |
| Citation | 125 Cal.Rptr. 261,52 Cal.App.3d 780 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re George A. THOMPSON on Habeas Corpus. In re Roger F. FAGUNDES on Habeas Corpus. r. 14468. |
George A. Thompson, in pro per.
Roger F. Fagundes, in pro per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, Patrick G. Golden, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
In these cases petitioners Fagundes and Thompson seek writs of habeas corpus to compel the respondents to allow petitioners access to their complete prison records. Subsequent to his petition, Fagundes was released on parole with the result that his petition is now moot. However, as the facts in Fagundes do not materially differ from those in Thompson we will discuss the Thompson petition and decide both cases on their merits.
On August 11, 1965, petitioner Thompson was convicted of first degree murder, and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. At a March 24, 1975 hearing, the petitioner was granted a parole date of March 15, 1978. On June 9, 1975, petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Superior Court of Marin County. On June 19, 1975, petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus from this court.
Petitioner alleges that on October 15, 1974, November 25, 1974, February 20, 1975, February 26, 1975, March 27, 1975, May 1, 1975 and May 9, 1975, he made both verbal and written requests for access to all records and papers comprising his Department of Corrections 'prison record.' The specific items requested by petitioner are: (1) the central file containing the complete prison record of the petitioner; (2) all written or otherwise recorded statements, reports, etc. of any alleged criminal or historical background of the petitioner while under the control of the respondents and their agents; (3) all Department of Corrections medical and psychiatric reports, evaluations, etc.; (4) all Department of Corrections interdepartmental memoranda pertaining to the petitioner; (5) any records, papers etc. contained in the Department of Corrections central index, the Departmental files at San Quentin Prison and any other facility of the Department of Corrections; (6) all active rules and regulations of the Department of Corrections and California Adult Authority where those rules and regulations affect the care and treatment of the petitioner; (7) a complete copy of the San Quentin classification manual; (8) a complete copy of the records submitted by respondents to the California Adult Authority before petitioner's last appearance on March 24, 1975.
Petitioner alleges that the above records contain false allegations of criminal conduct, medical and psychiatric reports and behavioral evaluations all of which are used to justify limitations on petitioner's access to rehabilitational programs and continued confinement.
According to Department of Correction logs, the petitioner examined his central file on February 20, 1975. At his request copies were made of items in the file. Numerous other documents were withheld as confidential primarily under Penal Code section 3046. On May 22, 1975, petitioner was allowed to examine his central file a second time. Copies of several documents in the file were furnished without charge. At the time of this review only one central file document was withheld as confidential, and petitioner was informed that the document was withheld for reasons of safety. The document was an interdepartmental memoranda from a correctional officer to his superior detailing an incident involving the petitioner. Although respondents claim that disclosure of this document to the petitioner would jeopardize an individual's safety, they do not explain what individual would be so jeopardized or why.
According to respondents, at the time of a hearing, only the inmate's central file is furnished to the Adult Authority officials; no other record is normally furnished. Respondents also state that in a review of any action a lack of action by the California Department of Corrections is subject to administrative appeal pursuant to DP--1003 of the Department's rules and regulations. In order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Sexton
...conclude an inmate must allege specific facts showing the administrative procedure is effectively unavailable. ( In re Thompson (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 780, 793, 125 Cal.Rptr. 261 ; see Wright, supra , 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 667, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 92.) Consequently, a statement in the pleading tha......
-
Serna, In re
...780, 783-784, 125 Cal.Rptr. 261), even when the grievances involve an alleged constitutional violation. (In re Thompson, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d p. 783, 125 Cal.Rptr. 261.) Nothing in the record suggests that resort to petitioners' administrative remedies would have been futile. Petitioners we......
-
Wright v. State
...their inmate records. (In re Muszalski (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 500, 503, 125 Cal.Rptr. 286 (Muszalski); accord In re Thompson (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 780, 783, 125 Cal.Rptr. 261 (Thompson).) Moreover, the California Supreme Court held that "[t]he requirement that administrative remedies be exhaus......
-
Dexter, In re
...1014, 143 Cal.Rptr. 350, 351; citing In re Muszalski (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 500, 503, 508, 125 Cal.Rptr. 286; In re Thompson (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 780, 783-784, 125 Cal.Rptr. 261.) Administrative review of the CRB's action in enhancing petitioner's term was available to him. Subject to excepti......