From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Husser v. Superior Court (Department of Corrections)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jul 11, 2008
No. E045303 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)

Opinion


JOHN HUSSER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Real Party in Interest. E045303 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division July 11, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

The County of Riverside Super. Ct. No. INC71841

OPINION

Miller, Acting P.J.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the response filed by the real party in interest. We have determined that the resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

Petitioner, John Husser, an inmate at Ironwood State Prison, filed an action in the trial court against the Department of Corrections alleging causes of action for breach of contract and negligence resulting from the alleged conversion of his personal property by prison officials. Being unsophisticated in legal matters, he believed that he was required to file his action on the form for a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court treated his complaint as though it were a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied it. Petitioner appealed and by order of this court the appeal was deemed to be a petition for writ of mandate.

“The nature of a pleading will be determined from its allegations regardless of its designation. [Citation].” (Luse v. Peters (1933) 219 Cal. 625, 631; see also Jaffe v. Carroll (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 53, 57 [“‘It is an elementary principle of modern pleading that the nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from its allegations, regardless of what it may be called, and that the subject matter of an action and issues involved are determined from the facts alleged rather than from the title of the pleadings . . . .’”].) Although filed on a form petition for writ of habeas corpus, the complaint is titled “civil complaint.” It was filed with a civil case cover sheet and contains a statement of facts and two sets of allegations titled “cause of action.” The response filed by the real party in interest indicates merely that it “takes no position with respect to the issuance of a peremptory writ.”

The established law on the subject supports the issuance of the requested writ because the trial court should have recognized the petitioner’s filing as a civil complaint and should not have disposed of the action by treating it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order of November 7, 2007, denying petitioner’s “petition for writ of habeas corpus” and to enter an order reinstating petitioner’s action as a civil complaint.

Petitioner is DIRECTED to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. Petitioner to recover his costs in this writ proceeding.

We concur: Hollenhorst, J., Gaut, J.


Summaries of

Husser v. Superior Court (Department of Corrections)

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Jul 11, 2008
No. E045303 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Husser v. Superior Court (Department of Corrections)

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HUSSER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Jul 11, 2008

Citations

No. E045303 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2008)