Denham

Denham v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 25, 2025C099564California1,067 words

Opinion

Opinion

Renner, J.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 2023, Denham filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court against respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its Secretary, Jeffrey Macomber, contending they failed in their alleged ministerial duty to transfer him to a different prison facility under Penal Code section 2933.7, subdivision (a).1 Denham sought a transfer to CIM in Chino or a facility in Stockton. Respondents demurred on the basis that: (1) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) Denham failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) respondents did not have a ministerial duty to transfer Denham to CIM or the Stockton facility; (4) respondents did not abuse their discretion in denying Denham’s

1 “In order to foster greater participation in rehabilitative programming and to reduce interruptions in incarcerated people’s growth, self-exploration, improvement and skill building, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall conduct programming in a manner that accomplishes all of the following: [¶] (a) Minimizes transfers from institutions, facilities, or sections of the institutions or facilities from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.