Taniform v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing CA1/3

Filed 6/27/24 Taniform v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

PROTUS NKWANA TANIFORM Plaintiff and Appellant, A169162 v. COMMISSION ON TEACHER (Alameda County CREDENTIALING, Super. Ct. No. 23CV034864) Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Protus Nkwana Taniform appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court denied his third petition for writ of mandate to compel the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Commission) to reinstate his teaching credential. We affirm. Taniform held a single-subject teaching credential and taught in three Bay Area school districts. On August 30, 2016, one of the school districts learned he let Emaline Abumbi — an uncredentialed individual — use his

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history,” we recite only those facts necessary to provide context and to resolve the issues presented. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

1

substitute teacher profile to work at six schools in the district. (His profile was used on 27 days that Taniform didn’t teach.) When confronted, Abumbi initially claimed she was Taniform. Ultimately, however, she admitted using the profile with his permission — she also said he offered to give her a portion of what he was paid for the days she worked. The district called Taniform, left a voicemail, and asked him to call back. The next day, he returned the call and left a voicemail in which he apologized, said he “ ‘was just trying to help someone and did it the wrong way,’ ” and indicated he was “fine” if the district wanted to remove him from the system. The district terminated him and informed the Commission. In November 2016, the Commission notified Taniform it had opened an investigation. He initially denied letting anyone use his profile and indicated this was the first he was hearing about the allegations or his removal from the substitute teacher roster. He later alleged friends fraudulently used his username and password to access and use his profile. Abumbi also submitted a declaration — apparently at the behest of Taniform’s attorney — in which she recanted her earlier statement that he had let her use his profile; instead, she indicated the “friends” he identified were the actual culprits. In 2018, after a hearing at which Taniform and Abumbi testified, the administrative law judge found Taniform was “not credible” and did not credit Abumbi’s recantation, finding her initial admission more persuasive. Ultimately, the judge determined the Commission had established by clear and convincing evidence that Taniform engaged in unprofessional conduct and acts of moral turpitude and revoked his teaching credential. The Commission adopted the judge’s proposed decision as its final decision. In March 2019, Taniform filed a petition for writ of mandate in San Francisco Superior Court challenging the Commission’s decision. The court