Menefield

Filed 11/12/14 Unmodified version attached

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

F068484

JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,

(Super. Ct. No. 12CECG03127) Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING REHEARING

D.R. FOREMAN et al., [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the published opinion filed herein on October 15, 2014, be modified as follows: On page 8, the last sentence of the second full paragraph beginning with the word “[f]urthermore” is deleted. On page 8, the following paragraphs are inserted after the second full paragraph:

Menefield disagrees, arguing that the ambiguity must be resolved by construing the word “duplicates” in the context of the entire regulatory scheme. (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [each statutory provision must be read not in isolation but in light of the statutory scheme].) In particular, Menefield argues the regulatory provision that delineates the right to appeal and exhaustion clearly demonstrates that inmate…