Turner v. Cal. Parole Advocacy Program CA1/2

Filed 2/27/13 Turner v. Cal. Parole Advocacy Program CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

STEPHEN B. TURNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, A135929 v. CALIFORNIA PAROLE ADVOCACY (Alameda County PROGRAM et al., Super. Ct. No. RG 11591586) Defendants and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION Appellant, appearing in pro per, appeals from a cost award in the amount of $1,270 entered by the Alameda County Superior Court after appellant had voluntarily dismissed a 12-count action he had filed against respondents, the California Parole Advocacy Program (hereafter CPAP) and its Northern California Director, Andrew Walker. The action alleged that those respondents had inadequately represented him in a parole revocation hearing which was determined adversely to him. We find this appeal to be without merit and, indeed, bordering on the frivolous. We thus affirm the cost award order of the superior court. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2011, appellant, at the time on parole for prior, albeit unstated, offenses, was staying in a motel in Hayward, California. Three agents of the agents from the California Department of Adult Parole Operations arrived at his room to, allegedly, perform a “parole sweep.” The agents allegedly found pornographic material on a

1

computer in his room, although appellant maintained that he had no knowledge of how that material got onto his computer. Nonetheless, he was detained on a parole revocation charge. Appellant retained CPAP to assist him in his forthcoming parole revocation hearing. CPAP is, according to appellant’s since-dismissed complaint, an organization “affiliated with the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law and has a contract with the State of California to provide legal representation to parolees charged with parole-revocation charges. [Respondent] Andrew S. Walker . . . is believed by the plaintiff to be the director of [CPAP] for Northern California.” On May 13, 2011, appellant had a pre-revocation hearing before a Deputy Commissioner in Dublin, California. Appellant was represented by an attorney apparently retained by CPAP. At the hearing, appellant allegedly requested that (1) he be given a polygraph examination to prove his innocence and (2) his computer be “forensically tested.” The Commissioner allegedly told appellant that neither alternative could be performed by the State, and his attorney allegedly advised him that CPAP “did not have the money to test his computer” and that even if they did the “results of the testing could possibly take up to” three months. Again, according to his complaint against CPAP, he “therefore accepted a parole-revocation offer” from the Commissioner for six-months eligible for half-time credit, but allegedly did so “under duress.” On August 31, 2011, appellant filed and served CPAP and Walker (and other named defendants who are not respondents in this appeal) with a complaint alleging 12 causes of action. These included violation of due process under both the federal and California Constitutions, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligence, ineffective assistance of counsel, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless misconduct, malice, violation of the exclusionary rule, breach of the standard duty of care, and negligence per se.