Aguilar v. Dept. of Corrections CA1/4

Filed 9/15/23 Aguilar v. Dept. of Corrections CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

ALEXIS AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, A165629 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Del Norte County CORRECTIONS AND Super. Ct. No. CVPT2021-1052) REHABILITATION, Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Alexis Aguilar, an inmate at Pelican Bay Prison appearing in propria persona, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandate, which sought an order compelling the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) to expunge from his prison file a 2013 disciplinary violation for participating in a hunger strike. While the appeal was pending, the Department placed a memorandum in Aguilar’s prison file stating that the rules violation at issue has been determined not to be a violation under the reasoning of In re Gomez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1082 (Gomez) and that Aguilar is not guilty of the violation. Because Aguilar has now obtained the relief he sought on appeal, we dismiss his appeal as moot.

1

Background On July 22, 2013, Aguilar was found guilty of a disciplinary violation after participating in a mass hunger strike and assessed a 90-day loss of custody credits against his sentence. Aguilar exhausted his inmate appeal challenging the disciplinary violation in January 2014. In March 2016, Division Two of this court addressed a habeas petition filed by another inmate who was found guilty of participating in the same mass hunger strike as Aguilar. (Gomez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1086.) The court held that Gomez’s participation in the hunger strike, which consisted of skipping nine consecutive meals to protest the conditions of solitary confinement at the prison, was not factually sufficient to support the Department’s finding that Gomez had engaged in behavior that “ ‘might lead’ ” to “ ‘disorder’ ” that “ ‘endangers facility, outside community or another person.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1098–1100.) The court ordered prison officials to restore Gomez’s lost credits and expunge the disciplinary violation from his prison file. (Id. at p. 1100.) In December 2016, Aguilar filed an administrative grievance challenging the July 2013 disciplinary violation based on the Gomez decision. His grievance explained, “I was found guilty of the exact same rule violation for exactly the same circumstances” as Gomez. He requested that he be afforded the same treatment as Gomez following his appeal. After exhausting the administrative proceedings, Aguilar filed the present petition seeking a writ of mandate compelling the department to expunge his 2013 disciplinary violation on the ground that under Gomez the violation was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Department demurred on grounds that: (1) Aguilar could pursue his claim by filing a habeas petition; (2) the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and (3) Aguilar failed to show the Department