In Re Thompson

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 1975 No. Docket Nos. 14448, 14468Published

Before: Caldecott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that petitioners must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief through a writ of habeas corpus, as they failed to demonstrate that such remedies were ineffective or would result in irreparable harm.

Issues

Whether a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief to compel access to prison records.
Whether allegations of constitutional violations excuse a petitioner from the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Generally, a litigant must exhaust his administrative remedies before he may resort to the courts.”

“In sum, petitioner’s allegations of constitutional violations do not relieve him of the necessity of first applying for relief through the proper administrative appeal procedures.”

Opinion

CALDECOTT, P. J.

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

[782]

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.

In Re Thompson

AI Brief

CALDECOTT, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief