Denham v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA3

Filed 11/25/25 Denham v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

PAUL JOHN DENHAM, C099564

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23WM000001)

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Paul John Denham, an inmate representing himself, appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its Secretary after the trial court sustained without leave to amend respondents’ demurrer to his petition for writ of mandate. In his opening brief, Denham argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend, and (2) the court erred by entering judgment disposing of all issues between the parties and omitting that dismissal was

1

without prejudice to Denham properly pursuing his claim via habeas corpus. On reply, Denham concedes his first argument is moot because, in the interim, he was transferred to the California Institute for Men (CIM) and thus given his requested relief. He argues his assertion that the judgment requires amending is not moot because it has a continuing effect on him “as improperly counting the litigation as one strike under the vexatious litigant statute despite the trial court finding the litigation to have merit via habeas.” He asks us to “remand t[he] matter to the trial court with directions to amend the judgment to include language sufficient to indicate that the litigation has not been finally determined adversely and should be excluded from qualifying as such under the vexatious litigant statute.” This argument is without merit. The judgment is reversed as moot. I. BACKGROUND In April 2023, Denham filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court against respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its Secretary, Jeffrey Macomber, contending they failed in their alleged ministerial duty to transfer him to a different prison facility under Penal Code section 2933.7, subdivision (a).1 Denham sought a transfer to CIM in Chino or a facility in Stockton. Respondents demurred on the basis that: (1) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) Denham failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) respondents did not have a ministerial duty to transfer Denham to CIM or the Stockton facility; (4) respondents did not abuse their discretion in denying Denham’s