Snyder v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA5

Filed 8/15/22 Snyder v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ROBERT SNYDER, F081087 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 18C0297) v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND OPINION REHABILITATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Kathy Ciuffini, Judge. Robert Snyder, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, Maria G. Chan and Janine W. Boomer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellant Robert Snyder (Snyder) is an inmate held by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (respondent).1 Faced with what Snyder alleges is a repetitive pattern of issues concerning the care of his personal property when he is transferred from one prison to another, Snyder filed a first amended petition for writ of mandamus (the petition) seeking to ensure his property arrived in a timely manner after his next transfer. The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer to the petition without leave to amend and entered judgment. The court determined the setting of specific deadlines for the return of property was not a ministerial duty subject to mandamus relief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The petition contended that prison staff regularly fail to deliver Snyder’s personal property to him in a timely manner after he is transferred from one prison to the next. The petition argued that the regulations in place that govern the storage and return of prisoner property are constitutionally infirm because they lack a specific deadline for returning the property to the prisoner. Relying on exemplary prior incidents he has experienced, Snyder stated that the failure to return property in a timely manner is a problem that is likely to frequently recur. The petition requested a ruling that the controlling regulations are invalid without a time frame and implied that a 72-hour timeframe would be appropriate. Respondent demurred to the petition, arguing that there was no ministerial duty to deliver property within a set timeframe, that the setting of a timeframe for the return of property was a discretionary decision, and that Snyder had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Following a hearing, the trial court agreed with respondent and dismissed the petition without leave to amend. The court found respondent had no ministerial duty to amend its regulations to establish a specific timeframe, that the