Jacobo Ruelas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

Jacobo Ruelas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Hearing Date: June 5, 2026

The demurrer filed by Defendants D. Best, Jeffrey Macomber, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to the First Amended and Supplemental Petition for Writ of Mandate, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Complaint for Damages (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Jacobo Ruelas (“Plaintiff”) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants’ request to judicially notice the FAC is GRANTED. [Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).]

Legal Standard.

A demurrer for sufficiency assesses whether the complaint properly states a cause of action. [Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).] When courts evaluate demurrers, they interpret the allegations broadly and in context. [Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.] In a demurrer, defects must be visible on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. [Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a).] A demurrer examines only the pleadings, not the evidence, counsel’s arguments, or external facts. [SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905; Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.]

Discussion.

1. Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”).

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of the FAC and all attachments thereto. [Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); FAC, Exh. A to RJN.]

2. Declaratory Relief Against Macomber.

In his FAC, Plaintiff named Mr. Macomber and CDCR as defendants in the First and Second Causes of Action for mandamus and declaratory relief, respectively. [FAC, Exh. A to RJN at ¶¶ 9-10, 24-38.] Defendants argue that it is duplicative for Plaintiff to name Mr. Macomber, whom Plaintiff alleges is the “Secretary of CDCR” [id. at ¶ 9], when Plaintiff already named CDCR, a public entity, in this lawsuit. Defendants are correct. The First and Second Causes of Action fail as to Mr. Macomber because he is being sued in his official capacity. [Pitts v. County of Kern (1998) 17 Cal.4th 340, 350 (a suit against a state official in their official capacity is to be treated as a suit against the official’s office).]

Plaintiff argues that Mr. Macomber is not being held liable for the same reasons as the CDCR, which is generally immune from liability except when equitable relief is involved. Instead, Plaintiff posits that Mr. Macomber could be held liable for any proven negligent or wrongful acts or omissions related to hiring, training, and supervising agents or employees, based on respondeat superior principles. However, Mr. Macomber is not included in the FAC’s Third Cause of Action for Negligence. [FAC, Exh. A to RJN at ¶¶ 39-45.] Giving Plaintiff leave to amend does not change the outcome because Mr. Macomber’s liability would resemble that of Defendant. As explained below, there is no valid cause of action against Best.

On this ground, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

3. First and Second Causes of Action.

Defendants argue that mandatory and declaratory relief under the First and Second Causes of Action, respectively, are moot. The Court agrees.

Plaintiff requests a writ of mandamus to compel CDCR to update his prison record to show only one violation related to alleged sexual activity, instead of the three or more currently listed, and to restore his contact visits. [FAC, Exh. A to RJN at ¶¶ 24-31.] As indicated in the FAC at Exhibit 038, the Inmate Visitation Restriction has been lifted due to CDCR acknowledging an administrative mistake: “Due to administrative error, [Plaintiff] was found guilty and received a 3rd occurrence for RVR dated 07/13/2024 – Sexual Activity in a Visiting Room with an Adult (3007) on 07/20/2024, when the RVR should have stated it was his 1st occurrence. [Plaintiff] has already completed the required timeframe for a first occurrence for 3007 and will be inactive as of 11/18/2025.”

Plaintiff argues that the FAC claims that Defendants have failed and refuse to correct the records, thereby making the mandamus not moot. However, this argument neglects the documentation at Exhibit 038 to the FAC. As stated in Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 713, n.13, it “is true that when there is a conflict between a complaint's allegations and exhibits that is direct and indisputable, the exhibit will prevail.” On this ground, the demurrer to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

For the declaratory relief claim, Plaintiff seeks “a declaration that the Senior Hearing Officer in Log #746815 acted negligently or wrongfully by finding three or more violations of 15 CCR § 3007, warranting the imposition of 180 days loss of visits and a permanent loss of contact visits.” [Id. at 11:23-28.] Additionally, Plaintiff asks for a permanent injunction requiring CDCR to amend its records to reflect only one violation of 15 CCR § 3007 and to prevent the agency from altering records or implying prior findings of sexual activity in past RVRs involving the plaintiff. [Id. at 12:1-6.]

Lastly, Plaintiff petitions for a permanent injunction to allow contact visits and prevent the CDCR from denying such privileges based on violations of 15 CCR § 3007. [Id. at 12:6-9.] In opposing the demurrer, Plaintiff’s main issue is the correction of state records. As Exhibit 038 to the FAC shows, these records have already been amended. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting an order to prevent CDCR from ending his visits in the future [see id. at 12:6-8], this request appears to be speculative.

Further, Plaintiff provides no authority

indicating that declaratory relief is appropriate as a guide for future conduct if the party who erred recognized and corrected the mistake. As to the Second Cause of Action, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. There is no real controversy left, and any concern now about repetition is speculative; the Court sees it as an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion. [Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546.]

4. Third Cause of Action Against Best.

Defendants’ demurrer to the Third Cause of Action against Best is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for two reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s submission of a Government Claim on or about December 16, 2025, [FAC, Exh. A to RJN at Exhibit 039-040] is untimely. The Government Claim had to be submitted within 6 months of the cause of action accruing. [Gov. Code § 911.2.] Plaintiff argues that Defendants Best and Groves intentionally falsified documents to punish Plaintiff unjustly, and that Defendant Best was the Hearing Official who found him guilty and imposed the punishment wrongfully on July 20, 2024. Clearly, Plaintiff was aware of his claims no later than six months after his grievance was filed in September 2024.

Second, Best’s role as Hearing Official grants him immunity under Government Code section 821.6 because Best is alleged to have wrongfully acted in the prosecution of the administrative proceeding regarding the Rules Violation.

Conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

3