Bell v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA6

Filed 7/29/15 Bell v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SHERMAN BELL H040466 (Monterey County Petitioner and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. HC8059)

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ,

Defendant and Respondent.

Sherman Bell, who is a prisoner at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison-Corcoran (SATF–CSP), appeals from the denial of his motion for injunctive relief. Background On July 18, 2013, Bell filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” in the Monterey County Superior Court. In the pleading, Bell sought injunctive relief prohibiting the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from disposing of his excess personal property. In particular, Bell sought to prohibit the CDCR from disposing of some of his legal research documents and religious books and publications upon his transfer to SATF–CSP on July 16, 2013. At the time Bell filed the “petition,” he was an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP). On November 8, 2013, the trial court dismissed the “petition.” The trial court deemed the “petition” moot since, according to

Bell his transfer to SATF-CSP was scheduled for July 16, 2013. On December 5, 2013, Bell filed a handwritten notice of appeal with the Monterey County Superior Court; he appealed from “the court’s refusal to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.” Appealability In essence, respondent contends that the denial of injunctive relief is not an appealable order because Bell filed his request as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a) specifies that “[a]n appeal, other than in a limited civil case, is to the court of appeal. An appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken from any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (6) From an order . . . refusing to grant . . . an injunction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6), italics added.) “ ‘A trial court’s order is appealable when it is made so by statute.’ [Citation.] The ‘one final judgment’ rule, codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(6) allows appeals in a civil case to be taken not only from a ‘judgment,’ but also from various types of orders, including orders granting or refusing to grant an injunction. Whether a particular order constitutes an appealable injunction depends not on its title or the form of the order, but on ‘ “the substance and effect of the adjudication.” ’ [Citation.]” (PV Little Italy, LLC v. MetroWork Condominium Assn. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 132, 142-143.) In the November 8, 2013 order, implicitly the trial court refused to grant an injunction, expressly finding that the issue was moot. Here, Bell is appealing from the court’s denial of his requested injunctive relief. Although the document that he filed was on Judicial Council of California form MC-275 for petitions for writs of habeas corpus, Bell amended the document title to state that it was a request for a preliminary injunction. The trial court understood the relief requested to be “a temporary injunction preventing SATF-CSP prison personnel from disposing of