Galzinski

Galzinski v. Somers

Good Law
2 Cal. App. 5th 1164·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 731·207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2016C079513California4,885 words

Opinion

Opinion

Robie, J.

—In February 2011, plaintiff Harald Mark Galzinski submitted a citizen’s complaint to the Sacramento Police Department (the department) against three of the department’s officers related to the taking of biological samples from him following his arrest in December 2003. In July 2014, the department’s internal affairs division notified Galzinski that the division had “reviewed [his] complaint” but “no further action” would be taken on it because, “[b]ased upon the information [Galzinski] provided, the issues [he] raised pertain[ed] to points of law which should have been litigated during [his] criminal trial in 2005. Therefore, the proper venue for resolving [his] complaint would be through the appeals process.”

Galzinski sought a writ of mandate from the superior court to compel defendant Samuel D. Somers, Jr., Chief of the Sacramento Police Department, and three sergeants in the department’s internal affairs division (real parties in interest Pam Seyffert, Charles Husted, and Terrell Marshall) to “properly investigate” his complaint and to “make official findings as to the validity of [his] allegations.” The superior court denied Galzinski’s petition, concluding that…

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.