Washington v. Doe CA5

Filed 9/2/21 Washington v. Doe CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, F081917

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 18C0355)

v. OPINION JOHN DOE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Valerie R. Chrissakis, Judge. Christopher Nathaniel Washington, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, Maria G. Chan and Janine W. Boomer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Appellant Christopher Nathaniel Washington, a self-represented prison inmate, contends the trial court erred in dismissing his writ petition pursuant to Code of Civil

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2).1 In June 2019, the trial court issued an order sustaining a demurrer to Washington’s first amended petition for writ of mandate and directing Washington to file an amended petition within 30 days. Washington’s amended pleading was signed by him and filed by the court in July 2020, more than one year after the trial court’s order. As explained below, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the dismissal of this lawsuit because Washington failed to timely file an amended pleading after being given leave to amend. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On August 30, 2018, Washington submitted a formal grievance using “CDCR 602” (Form 602) stating that on July 9, 2018, he “was rolled up from CSP-Corcoran Byrd Building #3 incidently [sic] staff refused to locate or pack my type writer and my television.” The Form 602 listed the typewriter’s value at $209, the 13-inch flat screen television’s value at $180, and a replacement ribbon’s value at $43. Thus, the total value of the missing property was $432. In the Form 602, Washington addressed his attempt at an informal resolution by stating he had mailed an inmate request for an interview and 30 days had passed without a reply. A “CDC FORM 695” (Form 695) dated September 5, 2018, advised Washington that his Form 602 had been forwarded to California State Prison-Corcoran for further processing. Less than a week later, the Form 602 was rejected. A second Form 695 informed Washington that necessary supporting documents were missing and he needed to attach a property receipt showing the property has been issued to him. In addition, it stated: “You must also clarify if you were issued property during your housing at SATF as you were housed there after CSP-COR.” (Italics omitted.)