Ballard v. Moseley CA5

Filed 5/22/25 Ballard v. Moseley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER BALLARD, F087627 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 22C0279) v.

HOWARD E. MOSELEY, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Randy L. Edwards, Judge. Christopher Ballard, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Sara J. Romano, Assistant Attorney General, Maria G. Chan and Colby Mills, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Fain, J.†

† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Christopher Ballard, a state prisoner, filed this appeal after a writ petition was denied as moot. As explained below, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Ballard filed an inmate grievance1 within the prison system. After the grievance was “disapproved,” he filed an administrative appeal. When Ballard received no response on his administrative appeal, he filed the instant writ petition in superior court, seeking to compel the prison to process his appeal, and prevent the prison from “deliberately obstructing” his attempt from “exhaust[ing]” remedies. The Attorney General appeared on the prison’s behalf and claimed Ballard “did not” and “never filed” an appeal to process. It supported the claim by declaration, in which “a custodian of records” swore there was “[n]o record of any … appeal[.]” “Based on that,” the trial court denied the writ petition “with prejudice.” Shortly after the trial court denied the writ petition, the prison, and subsequently Ballard, learned Ballard’s administrative appeal was misplaced—it was now considered “outdated correspondence.” Ballard filed a “motion for relief from a void judgment and order,” claiming “the judgment entered [against him] was based upon a fraudulent declaration[.]” The Attorney General responded to Ballard’s motion, contending the “judgment [was] not void,” acknowledged it “erroneous[ly] represent[ed]” that “Ballard had not submitted an [administrative] appeal,” and that the writ petition “should nonetheless be denied [as] moot.” It also admitted Ballard’s administrative appeal was “inadvertently misplaced,” “incorrectly processed,” and the prison’s belated response “formally exhaust[ed] Ballard’s administrative remedies[.]” Alleging “[t]here [was] no relief left … to grant,” the Attorney General reiterated its request for dismissal.