Valson v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA3

Filed 7/15/22 Valson v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

SILUS MARDEL VALSON,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C092788

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019- 00259697-CU-IP-GDS) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Silus Valson sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for the alleged theft of his idea about a prison plan of operation. He now contends the trial court erred in sustaining CDCR’s demurrer to his first amended complaint without leave to amend and in denying his motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).1 Because Valson’s appeal from the judgment was untimely, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. In addition, Valson does not establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal from the judgment of dismissal and affirm the order denying Valson’s section 473, subdivision (b) motion.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

BACKGROUND Valson filed a complaint against CDCR for conversion, theft, and violation of constitutional rights. He alleged that in September 2019, CDCR unlawfully took his idea called Recreational Experiment Created For Effective Social Success (Recess). He sought recovery of his property and compensatory and punitive damages. After Valson filed a first amended complaint, CDCR demurred. On December 30, 2019, the trial court filed an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and a judgment in favor of CDCR and against Valson. On January 6, 2020, CDCR filed and served by mail on Valson a notice of entry of the demurrer order and a notice of entry of judgment. Valson filed a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment pursuant to section 663 on January 21, 2020. The trial court dropped the motion, concluding Valson did not comply with the statutory notice requirement, section 663 did not lie to vacate a judgment following an allegedly erroneous demurrer ruling, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to reconsider its demurrer ruling because judgment had been entered. Valson filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his section 663 motion but filed an abandonment of that appeal less than two months later. Thereafter, on May 26, 2020, Valson filed a motion for relief under section 473, subdivision (b) on the ground of inadvertence. He claimed he did not know until later that he had a cause of action under contract or that he should have converted his first amended complaint into a petition for writ of mandate. Valson submitted a declaration with his motion for relief. The declaration did not explain what actions Valson took to determine any cause of action he might have had against CDCR, when he discovered the grounds upon which he based his application for relief, and why he did not file a motion for relief sooner. Valson submitted a subsequent declaration stating he did not know how to proceed in the action until after the trial court had sustained the demurrer and he could not have discovered the correct law earlier. CDCR opposed the motion for relief.