California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 80308 authorizes the Committee to conduct a preliminary review of information received about a credential holder, subject to limitations discussed post . ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80308, subd.(a); see also California Teachers Assn. v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369 ( California Teachers Assn. ).) Following the preliminary review, the Committee "may either determine to end the review or instruct staff to set the matter for initial review at a later meeting."
California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 80308 authorizes the Committee to conduct a preliminary review of information received about a credential holder, subject to limitations discussed post. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 80308, subd. (a); see also California Teachers Assn. v. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006 (California Teachers Assn.).) Following the preliminary review, the Committee "may either determine to end the review or instruct staff to set the matter for initial review at a later meeting."
(See, e.g., Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 401 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687]; California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369].) Many cases also have upheld safe harbors created by administrative regulations.
The rule that valid administrative regulations have the force and effect of law has been reiterated in dozens of California cases. (See, e.g., Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 401 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687]; California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369].) Many cases also have upheld safe harbors created by administrative regulations.
7, 11513; cf. California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1012 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369]; Cimarusti v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 799, 808-809 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 336].)
A regulation adopted by an administrative agency under its rulemaking authority has the force and effect of law. ( Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 401 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687]; California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 369].)
The undersigned does, however, note that the magistrate judge correctly found that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim is not restricted to the provision of hormone therapy, but rather, seeks to enjoin defendants "from interfering with the discretion of mental health and other medical professionals involved" in her care. (Doc. No. 39 at 7) (quoting Doc. No. 12 at 24.) The magistrate judge also correctly concluded the regulation in question expressly provides that vaginoplasty is medically unnecessary except for the treatment of cystocele or rectocele and that regulation has the force of law in California. (Doc. No. 39 at 10) (citing California Teachers Ass'n v. California Comm'n on Teacher Credentialing, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1008 (2003)). Thus, § 3350.1(b) continues to constitute a blanket ban on sex re-assignment surgery for transgender women inmates such as plaintiff. Finally, the magistrate judge correctly found that plaintiff's individual claims are not barred by the class action litigation in the Plata and Coleman cases because here plaintiff is bringing an individual claim for injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 39 at 12) (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1137 (9th Cir. 2013) ("Where a California prisoner brings an independent claim for injunctive relief solely on his own behalf for specific medical treatment denied to him, Plata does not bar the prisoner's claim for injunctive relief.")).
A regulation such as § 3350.1 has the force of law in California. See California Teachers Ass'n v. California Comm'n on Teacher Credentialing, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1008 (2003) ("A regulation adopted by an administrative agency pursuant to its delegated rulemaking authority has the force and effect of law.") Here, Defendants do not argue that the DOM policy has the same force of law or overrides contrary regulations. Moreover, CDCR has previously taken the position that DOM policies are superseded by state regulations.
(California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1012; Cimarusti v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 799, 808-809; Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 302.) At the same time, we are also aware that discovery may be required where a refusal to do so would so prejudice a party as to deny him or her a fair hearing and thereby violate due process.
(Ed. Code, §§ 44244.1, subd. (a)(1); 44242.5, subd. (c)(3)(B); see California Teachers Assn. v. California Com. on Teacher Credentialing (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1007.) Under the Administrative Procedure Act, after an administrative law judge (ALJ) hears the case at the administrative hearing, he or she prepares a proposed decision.