Menefield

Menefield v. Foreman

Good Law
180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 3·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1033·231 Cal. App. 4th 211
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 15, 2014F068484California2,816 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

Inmate James Fredrick Menefield appeals the denial of his writ of mandate, which sought to compel appeals coordinators at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) to complete the processing of an inmate appeal submitted by Menefield. His appeal had been cancelled during the screening process on the ground it was duplicative of an earlier appeal.

Menefield contends the appeals coordinators’ duty to process the appeal was ministerial and, because his August 2, 2012, appeal was not duplicative of his June 6, 2012, appeal, they had no discretion to cancel it.

We conclude that appeals coordinators have a ministerial duty to complete the screening of inmate appeals, but exercise discretion when determining if an appeal is duplicative of an earlier appeal. Here, the appeals in question concerned access to the A-facility chapel by Muslim inmates, but were different in other particulars. Because there was a significant overlap in the issues presented, we conclude the appeals coordinators did not abuse their discretion when they determined the August 2, 2012, appeal was duplicative of Menefield’s June 6, 2012, appeal.

We therefore affirm the judgment denying the petition.

FACTS

In…

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.