multiple times with a baton while prone on the floor (January 20 incident). Andres
further alleged that he timely submitted an administrative appeal on January 25 and again
on February 19, 2013 to redress his grievance. He filed his petition in early April 2013,
when he received no response from RJDCF to either administrative appeal. Finally, in
early June 2013, the RJDCF appeals coordinator notified Andres that his February 19
appeal was canceled as untimely. The appeals coordinator later claimed never to have
received Andres's January 25 appeal.
The court in its May 13, 2013 order found that Andres made a prima facie
showing that he was the victim of excessive force and that the administrative appeals
process was futile. The court thus ordered RJDCF to file an informal response to address
the "status" of Andres's appeals.
After reviewing the informal response of RJDCF and the reply to that response of
Andres, the court in its August 27, 2013 order found a material issue of fact existed
regarding whether Andres "filed his administrative appeal(s) in a timely fashion." The
court in its August 23 order thus issued an order to show cause directing RJDCF to
"specifically address why Petitioner [Andres] is not entitled to have his grievance
investigated . . . in accordance with the Department Operations Manual §§ 54100.10 and
2
54100.25, and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §§ 3268-3268.2." The August 23 order also
directed RJDCF to submit a "[r]eturn" and Andres to submit a "[d]enial."
The court in its July 30, 2014 order found there was a "reasonable likelihood" that
Andres may be entitled to relief under his petition. The court further found that whether
Andres was entitled to relief "depend[ed] on the resolution of facts surrounding
Petitioner's claim that he submitted an administrative appeal in a timely fashion and
whether the misconduct alleged by Petitioner should have been investigated as a Staff
Complaint." The court thus ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held to address the
factual issues raised by Andres's petition.1
The record shows an evidentiary hearing was held on August 22, 2014. Andres
testified on his own behalf, and Ronald Olson, an appeals coordinator, testified on behalf
of RJDCF.
Andres testified that he used the required form 602 in preparing his administrative
appeal stemming from the January 20 incident; that after he completed his administrative
appeal, he made a copy of that form; that he put the original appeal in a "U-Save, EM"
envelope; that he addressed the envelope to the appeals coordinator; and that he mailed it
via institutional mail between 4:30 and 8:30 p.m. on January 25. Andres never received a
response to his January 25 appeal.
1 The court in its July 30 order found that even if Andres's petition was one of mandate, RJDCF received notice of the petition from the court and that, in any event, RJDCF was not prejudiced by Andres's failure to personally serve the petition. As such, the court concluded the procedural requirements for service of the petition had been satisfied.
3
When Andres did not receive (what he considered to be) a timely response to his
January 25 appeal, he testified he spoke to his cellmate, who told Andres that he had
experienced similar problems when submitting an administrative appeal to RJDCF.
Concerned his January 25 appeal would be mishandled, Andres, with the help of his
cellmate, submitted another appeal dated February 17, 2013 concerning the January 20
incident. This time, however, Andres mailed his administrative appeal to the warden,
using legal mail. Andres testified he deposited his February 17 appeal in the inmate
mailbox after dinner on February 19. Andres was then unaware of the "602 lock box"
that was located adjacent to the inmate mailbox. At the hearing, he described the 602
lock box as a "small little box."
Andres testified he waited until February 19 to mail his February 17 appeal
because he then believed RJDCF had a policy that if an inmate filed more than one
appeal within 30 days they both would be rejected. Andres testified he was then in a
"dilemma" because the incident took place on January 20, 2013. As such, he was
required to file an appeal within 30 days, which he noted would have been on or before
February 19. However, he further noted that, because he filed his first administrative
appeal on January 25, RJDCF had 30 days to respond or until February 24, which was
after the February 19 deadline. Because he was concerned RJDCF would not respond to
his January 25 appeal, he therefore refiled his administrative appeal "before the 30-day
deadline was up."
The record includes a log of "legal mail" for Andres through March 15, 2013.
Page 2 of the log shows an entry dated "2/20/2013" to "D. Paramo, Warden@RJD." Next
4
to this entry is the handwritten notation, "Legal Mail to Warden Containing 602/Civil
Complaint on excessive force."
When asked if he mailed the February 17 appeal on February 20, 2013, as noted in
the log, Andres testified, "I know I specifically -- that I filed [this complaint] on the 19th
because I made it a point to file within the 30 days from the 20th, strictly because they --
I knew that they were trying to out wait [sic] the deadline on the first 602. And I got
some resistance from the C.O. then. They said we don't want to send this mail to the
warden, and they argued with me." When asked what date they argued with him, Andres
said, "the 19th."
After waiting another 30 days and hearing no response by RJDCF to either the
January 25 or February 17 appeals, Andres testified he filed on March 23, 2013 a "rights
and responsibility statement" (March 23 statement) in which he noted a lack of response
to either of his form 602's. Andres sent the March 23 statement via United States mail to
the chief of appeals–inmates appeal branch, in Sacramento.
As noted, Andres filed his petition in early April 2013, after not receiving any
response to his January 25 and February 17 appeals. Finally, more than five months after
the January 20 incident, and after filing his petition and after the court in its May 13,
2013 order made a prima facie showing he may be entitled to relief, RJDCF on or about
June 5, 2013 informed Andres that his February 17 appeal was canceled as "untimely."
Olson testified as follows at the August 22 evidentiary hearing regarding the
process inmates follow to file an administrative appeal:
5
"Well, the official method is to place it [i.e., the form 602] in the appeal[s]
collection box. That ensures the security of the appeal, and it allows us to track and log it
in. But inmates do submit their appeals through the institutional mail at times, and
sometimes they even give it to staff to deliver to the appeal[s] office." (Italics added.)
Olson testified that inmates also were given a pamphlet, aptly titled "How to
Submit an Appeal" (appeal pamphlet), to help them with the appeal process. Under the
section "how to file an appeal," the appeal pamphlet instructs that after a form 602 is
completed, the inmate must "[t]hen mail [the] appeal to the local Appeals Coordinator
(AC)." (Italics added.)
Olson testified that appeal collection boxes were located in each housing unit
among other locations; that the number "602" appears on the boxes; that based on
operational policy, which became effective in April 2012, only the sergeant had access to
the collection boxes; and that the sergeant was supposed to log the appeals into a logbook
and then deliver them to the appeals office. Olson noted if an inmate's appeal was not
logged it meant that the inmate did not submit his appeal through a secure collection box.
Olson testified there was another box for institutional mail that was also located in
each of the housing units. Like the secured collection boxes, the institutional mailboxes
were also locked. Olson noted an inmate could send his appeal via institutional mail by
merely "plac[ing] it in that box." He noted some inmates used a certain kind of envelope,
known as "U-Save, Em," but other times inmates used a plain-white envelope or
sometimes just submitted their appeals "loose[ly]." Olson also noted institutional mail
did not require postage, as the mail was processed through the RJDCF mailroom and then
6
routed to its destination. Olson further noted that only "confidential legal mail" was
tracked when deposited in the institutional mailbox.
Olson testified that once an appeal was received, it was reviewed for regulatory
compliance. If an appeal was accepted, it was then assigned out. If there was a problem
with an appeal that could be corrected, Olson stated the appeal would be "rejected" and
returned to the inmate with instructions on how to correct the appeal. Finally, if an
appeal could not be corrected, it would be "canceled" and returned to the inmate, who
then had 30 days from receipt of the notice of cancelation to appeal the cancelation
decision.
Olson testified the timeliness of an inmate's appeal was determined when it was
received by the appeals office. If an appeal was received more than 30 days after the
"action" or "decision" that was the subject of the appeal, it was deemed untimely. Olson
explained they used the date it was received because otherwise "inmates [could] backdate
their appeals." Before an appeal was canceled, Olson testified they determined whether
there were "any circumstances that would indicate that it wasn't the inmate's fault, that it
didn't get right to us, you know, that we would take that into consideration. And we can
actually have discretion to accept the appeal, even though we actually received it late."
When asked whether such "circumstances" might include institutional mail, Olson
testified as follows:
"Well, the institutional mail is not the approved way of sending it, but we do try
to, you know, look at the circumstances. If we knew our mailroom was behind -- there
w[ere] any delays. . . . But there are times when the mailroom -- we thought there might
7
be a chance that the mailroom was delayed, then we will take that into consideration to
accept the appeal."
When asked whether any such exceptions would apply if an inmate sent an appeal
to another person, like a warden, Olson testified, "That's -- that's -- well, I would look at
the circumstances, but I would not consider that to be a valid reason why it was received
late." When asked what would happen if an appeal was sent to the warden, Olson stated
the warden would either return the appeal to the inmate with instructions to submit it
directly to the appeals coordinator or would just forward the appeal to the appeals office.
With regard to Andres's appeal(s), Olson testified that the appeals office received
only one appeal, dated February 17, 2013; that the February 17 appeal was received in
the appeals office on March 1, 2013; that based on the envelope, the warden had
forwarded the February 17 appeal to the appeals office; that the appeals office on March
4, 2013 canceled the appeal because it was untimely, inasmuch as it was "mailed" per the
log on February 20 or more than 30 days after the January 20 incident; and that although
the February 17 appeal was canceled, it nonetheless was sent for an "allegation review"
because the appeal alleged excessive force.
As noted, Andres was notified on or about June 5, 2013 that his appeal had been
canceled. When asked why it took the appeals office so long to notify Andres, Olson
testified the office "had an enormous amount of backlog." Although Andres had 30 days
to appeal the cancelation decision, Olson testified that Andres never filed such an appeal.
Olson also testified the appeals office never received Andres's January 25 appeal.
8
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the court found that Andres had
timely submitted his January 25 appeal via institutional mail. In so finding, the court
rejected RJDCF's contentions that Andres failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
when he failed to file an appeal to the notice of cancelation and that his appeal, in any
event, was untimely.
The court stated it was "astonished" that RJDCF would claim Andres failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies given that RJDCF did not notify Andres his appeal
had been canceled until after Andres had filed his petition, and given that RJDCF
aggressively argued Andres's February 17 appeal was untimely. Because RJDCF took
the position the appeal was untimely, the court found it would have been futile for Andres
to have appealed the cancelation notice.
The court also found Andres and his testimony credible with respect to the date he
prepared and filed his January 25 appeal. Specifically, the court found that from the
"very beginning after this [i.e., the January 20 incident], I [i.e., the court] ha[s] reams of
documentation that Mr. Andres was pursuing whatever remedy he could possibly think of
because, right or wrong . . . he felt that he was wronged on that date. [¶] And I find -- I
don't know when the January 25th appeal was filed. I believe it was filed. I don't find
any deliberate wrongdoing by anybody at [RJDCF], but I think the appeal just went
missing with the reams of paperwork that are filed in the appeal[s] office and otherwise at
[RJDCF]. You know, I imagine things do go missing. They go missing here in this
courthouse. So I don't find it unreasonable that after he got no response, that he went
okay. Watch this. I'm going to go file it with the warden.
9
"I understand better from Mr. Olson's testimony why it's a receipt date rather than
a filed date for the 30 days; however, I think that if you -- 30 days isn't very long. And I
think if you put it in the mailbox within 30 days, to me that's sufficient. But I'm finding –
I have to say I'm finding that there was an earlier appeal – an earlier timely appeal that
was filed and was somehow misplaced. [¶] . . . [¶]
"That it was not until after [Andres filed his petition and after the May 13, 2013
order for the informal response was sent] that that the cancellation was received . . . by
Mr. Andres – that not only received, but issued. To say at that point with able counsel
[RJDCF] was vociferously fighting the fact that Mr. Andres can pursue his appeal, I just
find it kind of incredible that you would argue that he had to go back and exhaust his
appeals at that point. There is no clear indication by [RJDCF] that [it was] going to do
anything – as indicated by this hearing here, anything but deny the timely filing of the
complaint. [¶] So . . . I'm also finding . . . a waiver because of [RJDCF's] untimely
response" to the February 17 appeal.
The record shows that the court next clarified that it was finding the January 25
appeal was timely filed and that, in granting Andres's petition, it was "sending this back
to [RJDCF] so that his appeal can be processed." The court thus found it resolved the
only issue before it—whether Andres timely filed his administrative appeal—and the
matter was "back to Mr. Olson's office to process as he would any 602 that was going to
be processed."
In mid-September 2014, RJDCF moved for reconsideration of the court's August
22 oral pronouncement of findings following the evidentiary hearing. RJDCF contended
10
that even if Andres in fact submitted his January 25 appeal, as found by the court, he was
not entitled to have RJDCF process his appeal because he failed to follow the proper
procedure for submitting his appeal when he used institutional mail in lieu of the secure
collection box.
On October 10, 2014, the court issued a written order granting Andres's petition
nunc pro tunc to August 22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the court issued another order
denying RJDCF's reconsideration motion. In so doing, the court noted that RJDCF's
motion included evidence that was available but not presented at the August 22
evidentiary hearing and, thus, found the attachment of such evidence to be "unauthorized
and untimely."
However, the court addressed the merits of the reconsideration motion, in which
RJDCF contended the exclusive means for inmates to submit form 602 administrative
appeals was through the secured collection boxes. The court found that RJDCF's position
in its reconsideration motion was "contradicted by evidence [RJDCF] presented at the
evidentiary hearing." The court cited Olson's testimony from the August 22 evidentiary
hearing that there were different, approved methods at RJDCF to submit a form 602
appeal, including submitting the appeal "through the institutional mail" as Andres had
done, "giv[ing] it to staff to deliver to the appeal[s] office," or the "official method,"
which was to place the appeal in the "appeal[s] collection box."
The court thus found in its October 21 order that Olson's testimony at the August
22 hearing "makes clear that [Andres] utilized an approved method for submitting [his]
administrative appeal[], namely the use of institutional mail through submission of a 'U-
11
save, Em envelope,' that does not require postage. [Citation.] Mr. Olson's testimony at
the evidentiary hearing credibly confirms that the Appeals Coordinator at RJDCF accepts
administrative appeals submitted by inmates by way of institutional mail. To the extent
the court may be required to consider belated evidence that secured appeal collection
boxes are the only approved method to submit administrative appeals, such evidence is
simply not credible. Moreover, [RJDCF's] attempt to limit [Andres] to filing his appeal
by means of a secured appeal collection box in the present case is arbitrary, irrational,
and constitutes [an] abuse of discretion, inasmuch as the Appeals Coordinator accepts
administrative appeals through institutional mail and by personal delivery by other staff
members.
"The court also finds that the mailing of administrative appeals is authorized by
the applicable regulations. Mr. Olson testified that the proper submission of appeals is
§ 3084.2(b)(2) . . . authorizes inmates to submit their administrative appeals via mail. It
provides, 'Inmates or parolees shall submit their appeal documents in a single mailing
and shall not divide their appeal documents into separate mailings.' (Emphasis added.)"
As a result, the court in its October 21 order found that to the extent RJDCF policy
regarding submitting an appeal conflicted with this regulation, such policy was void.2
2 In particular, the court referenced court exhibit 12 and "Exhibit 30." Court exhibit 12, which the parties relied on at the August 22 hearing, is a memorandum dated April 2012 regarding use of the secure collection boxes for appeals at RJDCF. Exhibit 30 is a memorandum dated April 30, 2012 based on court exhibit 12 that RJDCF submitted in response to Andres's opposition to the motion for reconsideration. Exhibit 30 in pertinent 12
Finally, in early March 2015, our court granted the supersedeas petition of RJDCF
to stay the August 22 and October 10, 2014 orders of the court.
DISCUSSION
RJDCF contends it was not required to process Andres's January 25 appeal
because he failed to follow RJDCF's approved administrative procedure for submitting
his appeal. Because it never received the January 25 appeal, RJDCF further contends that
Andres should not have been allowed to argue, or the court to find, that he in fact timely
submitted the January 25 appeal via institutional mail.
A. Standard of Review
"In an appeal from an order granting a petition for habeas corpus after an
evidentiary hearing, basic principles of appellate review apply, and thus, questions of fact
and questions of law are reviewed under different standards. [Citation.] . . . [F]indings
of fact will be accorded due deference under the substantial evidence standard.
[Citation.] However, '[t]his court . . . independently reviews questions of law, such as the
selection of the controlling rule.' [Citation.] Mixed questions of law and fact are
reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard if the inquiry is predominantly factual, but
are reviewed de novo if the application of law to fact is predominantly legal. [Citation.]"
(In re Douglas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 242.)
part states going forward an inmate "will be required to place all outgoing [form] 602['s] . . . in the 'secured appeal collection boxes' located within all housing areas of the institution." 13
B. Guiding Principles
An Inmate "may appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the
department or its staff that the inmate . . . can demonstrate as having a material adverse
effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15,3 § 3084.1,
subd. (a).) "The appeal process is intended to provide a remedy for inmates . . . with
identified grievances and to provide an administrative mechanism for review of
Focusing solely on Andres's January 25 appeal, we conclude substantial evidence
in the record supports the finding of the court that Andres, whom the court found
credible, submitted that appeal on or about January 25, as he testified and as reflected on
the 602 appeal form itself; and that, as such, his appeal was timely pursuant to section
3084.8, subsection (b)(1), inasmuch as the incident that was the subject of the appeal
occurred on January 20, 2013.
We further conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
court's finding that Andres's use of institutional mail was an accepted method for an
inmate at RJDCF to file an administrative appeal. Indeed, Olson testified at the August
22 evidentiary hearing that the appeals office received and processed administrative
appeals not only via the secure collection boxes but also through institutional mail and
though personal delivery of appeals by staff.
In addition, we note the appeal pamphlet given to inmates to assist them in
preparing administrative appeals does not state an inmate was required to use the secure
collection boxes when submitting an administrative appeal, but rather merely provides
16
that an inmate must "mail" his or her completed form 602 to the local appeals
coordinator.
Moreover, court exhibit 12, the "Operational Plan #3" prepared by the warden of
RJDCF in April 2012, also does not support RJDCF's contention that Andres was
required to submit his January 25 appeal through a secured collection box. Exhibit 12
instead appears to be merely an attempt by the warden to standardize the collection,
delivery and processing of inmate appeals. There is no language in exhibit 12 stating an
inmate was required to use the secured collection boxes in lieu of any other type of mail
or delivery system in submitting an administrative appeal. In any event, it does not
appear that inmates of RJDCF received a copy of exhibit 12.
With regard to exhibit 30 that was included by RJDCF in its response to Andres's
opposition to the motion for consideration, as noted the evidence clearly showed that the
RJDCF appeals office accepted administrative appeals submitted through institutional
mail and by personal delivery. Thus, to the extent there was a policy allegedly in place
requiring submission of appeals through a secured collection box, we note in practice
appeals were submitted and accepted by other means.
Finally, RJDCF's position that an inmate was required to use a secure collection
box to submit an administrative appeal is undermined by RJDCF's position that such an
appeal must be received in the appeals office before the expiration of 30 days from the
incident being appealed. Olson testified this policy prevented an inmate from
"backdating" an appeal. However, because appeals placed in the secured collection box
are logged in by the sergeant and then delivered to the appeals office, it would be
17
impossible for an inmate to backdate an appeal if an inmate was required to use a secured
collection box, as RJDCF contends. In our view, using the date an appeal is received to
determine timeliness shows an inmate can submit an administrative appeal through
means other than a secured collection box.
Further, we independently conclude there is no requirement in the applicable
regulations that an inmate must submit an administrative appeal through a secured
collection box or similar system, or frankly, through any specific type of mail or delivery
system, in order for the appeal to be deemed properly submitted. Rather, section 3084.8,
subsection (b) merely provides that an inmate "must submit the appeal within 30 calendar
days of . . . [t]he occurrence of the event or decision being appealed." Here, the record
shows Andres timely submitted his January 25 appeal when he mailed it that same day to
the appeals coordinator via institutional mail.
According to RJDCF, because Andres did not use the secure collection box to
submit his January 25 appeal he is essentially estopped from claiming he timely
submitted the appeal because there was no way for the appeals office to track his appeal
and because the appeals office never received it. We note, however, that according to
Olson, the appeals office on a typical day received anywhere from 20 to 40
administrative appeals. As the court thus noted, through no fault of RJDCF it was not
altogether surprising, particularly given the sheer number of appeals being filed, that an
appeal timely submitted through institutional mail went missing.
In any event, we decline under the circumstances of this case to adopt a rule
placing the risk of loss of Andres's January 25 administrative appeal on Andres when the
18
court found him credible and found he timely submitted the appeal and mailed it through
proper means. Indeed, the record shows Andres was so concerned his January 25 appeal
would be mishandled that he submitted another appeal on February 19 regarding the
same January 20 incident. Andres testified he did so because he was aware other RJDCF
inmates in the past had experienced problems obtaining review of an administrative
appeal. When Andres received no response to either appeal, he complained to the chief
of appeals by way of his March 23 statement.
In light of the evidence in the record, the fact the applicable regulations do not
require an inmate to use any specific mail procedure to submit an administrative appeal
and the fact that RJDCF's own procedures allowed inmates to use means other than a
secure collection box to submit an appeal, we conclude that the court properly found
Andres's January 25 appeal was timely filed.4
In light of our decision, we deem it unnecessary to decide whether Andres's
separate appeal of the January 20 incident, which he submitted on February 19, was also
timely. (See, e.g., Houston v. Lack (1988) 487 U.S. 266, 271, 276 [noting the prison-
delivery or mailbox rule provides that a document is constructively filed when a prisoner
properly delivers the document to prison officials for forwarding to the court].) As such,
we also deem it unnecessary to decide whether the court erred when it found Andres was
excused from appealing the cancelation of his February 19 appeal because that appeal
would have been "futile."
4 Like the trial court, we offer no opinion regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of Andres's January 25 appeal. 19
DISPOSTION
The order granting Andres's petition is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McINTYRE, J.
20
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the petitioner timely submitted his administrative appeal via institutional mail, and that the correctional facility's failure to process it was improper, as institutional mail was an accepted method of submission.
Issues
Whether the petitioner timely submitted his administrative appeal in accordance with departmental regulations.
Whether the use of institutional mail constituted a valid method for submitting an administrative appeal at the correctional facility.
Whether the trial court's factual findings regarding the timely submission of the appeal were supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the court found that Andres properly prepared and timely submitted via institutional mail an administrative appeal involving an incident that occurred on January 20, 2013”
“there is substantial evidence in the record to support the court's finding that Andres's use of institutional mail was an accepted method for an inmate at RJDCF to file an administrative appeal.”