Opinion
A164495
11-27-2023
RANDY STEVEN KRAFT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1902075.
STREETER, Acting P. J.
Randy Steven Kraft, a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandate, by which he sought to compel California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to return certain property Kraft contends was improperly "dissipated, " or to pay him $865.68 in lieu of returning the property. We affirm the order denying Kraft's petition.
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2014, a disciplinary violation report was filed alleging Kraft had engaged in indecent exposure with a prior indecent exposure incident. Kraft was moved, pending a disciplinary hearing, to a less privileged housing status (from "Grade A" to "Grade B"), one that had more restrictions on the property he could possess.
In connection with the move, and pursuant to an operations manual applicable to condemned inmates, prison staff inventoried Kraft's property to identify items he was not authorized to possess. Staff provided Kraft with a list of the items so he could choose how to dispose of them. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c) [inmate may select method for disposing of non-allowable personal property].) Kraft requested that, if he were found guilty of the violation, the majority of the unauthorized property be mailed to a third party and the remaining items be donated or disposed of according to prison procedures. (Ibid. [inmate may choose to mail non-allowable property to a third party, return property to the sender, donate property to a charity or to the prison, or dispose of property according to prison procedures if the property has been rendered useless].)
The unauthorized property was placed in storage until after Kraft was found guilty of the violation (in December 2014) and after his matter was heard by the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) (in January 2015). The ICC imposed a six-month determinate term in Grade B housing, which would end automatically on March 13, 2015. Since Kraft was found guilty and the ICC imposed a determinate term on Grade B status, in mid-January 2015, the prison mailed four boxes of Kraft's property to a third party. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c).) The rest of the property apparently was destroyed or donated as Kraft had elected.
As we discuss further below, the 2014 operations manual applicable to San Quentin condemned inmates provides in section 404 that, if a Grade A inmate is found guilty of a serious rules violation and the ICC "elects to assess and impose a Grade B determinate term, beyond the date of the committee, the inmate will be given the opportunity to mail out any unauthorized property that remains in the custody of the [officer who inventoried the inmate's property]. Any unauthorized property not mailed out will be disposed of per institutional procedures."
Kraft filed an administrative appeal challenging his guilt of the rules violation, and the appeal was granted in part at the second level of review. The reviewer ordered the disciplinary report reissued and reheard because it erroneously stated Kraft had been previously disciplined for indecent exposure when he had not. The rules violation was later dismissed (in March 2016) in the interest of justice.
In further administrative appeal proceedings, Kraft sought return of the confiscated property (or compensation in lieu of return) in light of the prison's dismissal of the violation. The CDCR denied that relief in June 2016.
Three years later, in July 2019, Kraft, proceeding in propria persona, filed a petition for a writ of mandate, asking the trial court to compel the CDCR to return the property at issue or pay him $865.68 in lieu of returning the property. In May 2021, the court overruled the CDCR's demurrer to the petition, and the CDCR filed an answer, arguing on various grounds that Kraft was not entitled to relief.
Kraft filed a reply to the answer, as well as a motion for judgment on his petition for a writ of mandate. Kraft also filed a motion asking the court to deny the CDCR's request for judicial notice of the 2014 condemned inmate operations manual because some portions of the manual were not attached to the CDCR's answer. The CDCR then filed an amended answer that attached the complete manual.
The court construed the amended answer as an opposition to Kraft's motion for judgment. Kraft responded to the amended answer by filing a motion to strike it and by filing a second motion for judgment and a request to present oral argument.
After considering the parties' filings and hearing argument, the court denied Kraft's petition for a writ of mandate. The court found that, under the 2014 condemned inmate manual, the CDCR did not have a ministerial duty to retain Kraft's property pending appeal of his prison disciplinary violation. Kraft sought reconsideration of the court's decision, but the court denied his request. Kraft appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Kraft contends the court erred in denying his petition and should have directed the CDCR to compensate him for the property taken when he was moved from Grade A to Grade B housing. A writ of mandate is available to compel a public agency to perform an act required by law. (People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 339; Flores v. Department of Corrections &Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205.) "To obtain relief, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) no 'plain, speedy, and adequate' alternative remedy exists [citation]; (2)' "a clear, present . . . ministerial duty on the part of the respondent" '; and (3) a correlative' "clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty." '" (Picklesimer, at p. 340; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1086.)
The trial court correctly denied Kraft's petition. Inmates in California prisons "may possess only the personal property . . . as permitted" by regulation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3006; see id., § 3190, subd. (a).) Under San Quentin's operations manual for condemned prisoners, an inmate on Grade B status is not authorized to possess certain types or quantities of property that may be possessed by an inmate in the Grade A classification.
We agree with the trial court that the actions of prison officials here- inventorying and storing Kraft's property when he was first moved to Grade B, and then allowing him to mail it to a third party once he was found guilty and a Grade B determinate term was imposed-comported with section 404 of the 2014 operations manual (the version in effect when the relevant events here occurred). Kraft does not dispute that the charged misconduct was, as alleged in 2014, a "serious rules violation." Nor does he dispute that this alleged violation was "pending" when his property was inventoried, or that in 2015 he was offered the opportunity to have property he was no longer authorized to possess mailed to a third-party after he was initially found guilty of the charge.
Section 404 of the 2014 manual states in part: "Grade A condemned inmates that have a pending serious rules violation . . . will be temporarily placed on Grade B status pending adjudication of the RVR 115 [i.e., the rules violation report] and committee review for Grade Status. At this time, the East Block Property Officer will inventory the personal property of the inmate awaiting adjudication of the RVR 115 and committee review. All Grade B approved property will be issued to the inmate. All other personal property will be placed into storage until the review for Grade Status is completed. If the inmate is found not guilty and committee restores Grade A status, the property officer will reissue the Grade A status inmate his property that was placed into storage. Items identified as contraband, or altered property will not be returned. In the event the inmate is found guilty and committee elects to assess and impose a Grade B determinate term, beyond the date of the committee, the inmate will be given the opportunity to mail out any unauthorized property that remains in the custody of the East Block Property Officer. Any unauthorized property not mailed out will be disposed of per institutional procedures." (Italics added.)
This method of handling the property at issue here (allowing Kraft to have it mailed out of the prison) was also consistent with regulations governing unauthorized property generally. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c)(1).) As the court found, section 404 of the 2014 manual did not require officials to continue to store the property while Kraft pursued administrative appeals. We see no merit to Kraft's suggestion that, because the rules violation alleged against him was ultimately dismissed (or allegedly was otherwise defective), there somehow was "never" a finding of guilt within the meaning of section 404. The rules violation charge was dismissed, but the initial finding sustaining it was not vacated nunc pro tunc.
In any event, Kraft has not shown he was harmed by the prison officials' actions. Pursuant to applicable regulations and the operations manual, Kraft was given the option to preserve the property at issue by directing that it be mailed to a third party. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3191, subd. (c)(1).) He exercised that option for most of the property, while choosing not to for some items. Prison officials did not lose Kraft's property, require that it be destroyed, or "wrongfully dissipate[]" it (Escamilla v. Department of Corrections &Rehabilitation (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 498, 516). They just allowed Kraft to mail unauthorized items out of the prison. (See In re Dohner (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 590, 596, 592 [rejecting constitutional claims based on prison property restrictions; "There is no authority in support of the proposition that requiring inmates transferred to CVSP [Chuckawalla Valley State Prison] to mail home or dispose of property they are not permitted to possess at CVSP amounts to an 'unconstitutional taking, ' as Dohner and Gerber would have it."].) Because Kraft had the ability to preserve all his property, none of his arguments-such as his procedural claims challenging the court's consideration of the CDCR's pleadings and related matters, or his attempt to raise for the first time on appeal a claim of "malicious prosecution"-provides any basis to reverse the court's order denying his writ petition.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the court's order.
Having determined that we may affirm on the grounds discussed in the text, we need not address the CDCR's argument that there are various alternative grounds for affirmance, such as its contention that Kraft has an adequate legal remedy, or that his petition was untimely, or that he failed to exhaust arguments he presented in the trial court.
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying Kraft's petition for a writ of mandate is affirmed. The CDCR shall recover its costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: GOLDMAN, J. HIRAMOTO, J.[*]
[*] Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.