Hall v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 2/25/26 Hall v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

ANTHONY JAMA HALL, C100087

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2023- 80004085-CU-WM-GDS) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Defendant;

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Appellant Anthony Jama Hall appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse a prior order from the same court. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Appellant was arrested and incarcerated in December 2018; the charges were later dismissed. Appellant initiated a government tort claim related to the arrest against real party in interest Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.2 The superior court found his claim was untimely and denied appellant’s petition for relief from a late filing of claim on November 9, 2022. In 2023, appellant filed a second petition with the superior court, this one for a writ of mandate asking the court to “[v]acate its [t]entative [r]uling [i]ssued November 8, 2022,” grant appellant’s “[p]etition for ‘[r]ehearing,’ ” and consider the merits of appellant’s government tort act claim. Appellant stated he was taking “advantage of an avenue that was and remains available as the time to [a]ppeal the [e]rroneous [d]ecision has [l]apsed, and therefore [the] writ of [m]andate [p]etition filed herein is [a]dequate.” On November 17, 2023, the trial court, through a different judge than in the first case, denied this petition finding, “A superior court has no power, authority, or jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate against itself.” Appellant appeals.

1 We deny appellant’s request for judicial notice because he failed to attach the documents in his request. (Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 744 [“The burden is on the party seeking judicial notice to provide sufficient information to allow the court to take judicial notice”].) We also deny as moot Sacramento County Board of Supervisors’s request for judicial notice of appellant’s notice of appeal because this document is already in our records. 2 Real party in interest stated in filings with the trial court and in its brief it was erroneously named by appellant and should be the County of Sacramento.