Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose T. Lopez, incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory relief in Kings County Superior Court on November 14, 2024. He alleged that he submitted a prison grievance on May 20, 2024, concerning a February 23, 2024 rules violation report, and that grievance coordinator G. Lujan failed to issue a decision within 60 days as required by California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3483(g). Lopez sought a declaration that Lujan violated that regulation and a writ commanding immediate compliance.
Lopez attached correspondence with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Office of Appeals, but not a copy of the alleged grievance. Lujan opposed the petition with a declaration describing SATF's grievance records and logging procedures. Lujan stated that searches of records kept in the ordinary course of business revealed no grievance concerning the specified rules violation report, no grievance submitted on or about May 20, 2024, and no grievance from Lopez at all during 2024. After Lopez's petition alleged that an earlier grievance had gone unanswered, prison officials opened a new grievance to review that allegation and denied the claim because there was no record of its submission.
The parties submitted the matter on their briefs, and the trial court denied the petition on October 13, 2025. It credited Lujan's declaration and found that Lopez had not established submission of the grievance. The court therefore found no factual basis for concluding that Lujan had failed to perform his ministerial duty of processing it. Lopez appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that a petitioner seeking traditional mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 must establish both a clear, present, usually ministerial duty owed by the respondent and a clear, present, beneficial right to performance of that duty. The court reviewed the trial court's factual findings for substantial evidence, while identifying legal issues as subject to de novo review.
The court first held that Lopez forfeited his appellate arguments because they were inadequately developed and lacked appropriate citations to the record and relevant legal authority. It nevertheless addressed and rejected them on the merits. Lopez contended that the absence of a grievance in prison records did not prove non submission, that the lack of a tracking number was not conclusive, and that his inquiry letter was positive evidence outweighing Lujan's negative evidence. He also invoked the mailbox rule, possible administrative mishandling, exhaustion of remedies, and the opening of a new grievance log.
Those arguments did not overcome the trial court's express factual finding that Lopez had not submitted the alleged grievance. The appellate court held that Lujan's declaration amply supplied substantial evidence supporting that finding. Given the finding of non submission, the trial court properly concluded that there was no factual basis for finding a breach of Lujan's duty to process the grievance. The order was affirmed, and Lujan was awarded costs on appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).
Key Takeaways
- A mandate petitioner must prove both the respondent's clear present duty and the petitioner's clear present beneficial right to performance of that duty.
- A grievance coordinator's regulatory duty to ensure a timely written decision does not establish liability when the petitioner fails to prove that the grievance was submitted.
- A declaration describing searches of grievance records maintained in the ordinary course of business can constitute substantial evidence supporting a finding of non submission.
- Appellate arguments may be forfeited when they lack meaningful legal analysis and adequate citations to authority and the record.
- The opening of a new grievance to investigate an allegation did not establish that the earlier grievance had actually been filed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the evidentiary burden in a mandate proceeding can be decisive before a court reaches any broader claim about prison grievance administration. Lopez's regulatory deadline argument depended on proof of a triggering submission, and the credited records declaration supported the trial court's finding that no such submission occurred. The appellate court did not treat the absence of a log entry as an isolated legal rule; it upheld the factual finding based on Lujan's declaration concerning searches of the relevant records.
The opinion also demonstrates that an appellate court may identify briefing forfeiture and still explain why the arguments fail on the merits. Its merits analysis remained tied to substantial-evidence review and the trial court's credibility determination, rather than independently resolving Lopez's assertions about mailing, administrative mishandling, or the mailbox rule. The unpublished decision affirms the order and awards appellate costs to Lujan.