HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling DATE/TIME: June 25, 2026, 2:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: D. TRAN ROCKWELL

MICHAEL JAY HARRIS, Case No.: 26WM000023 Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILIITATION, ET AL., Respondents.

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for the hearing by audio and/or video through the following link: DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID 3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

Parties requesting services of a Court Reporter will need to arrange for private Court Reporter

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code § 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a Court Reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a Court Reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the Clerk of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

The demurrer of Respondents California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) and Secretary Jeffery Macomber (collectively, Respondents) to the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by Petitioner Michael Jay Harris (Petitioner) is ruled upon as follows.

Respondents’ request for judicial notice of administrative rulemaking documents is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

Background

Petitioner alleges he is an incarcerated person currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. (Petition [Pet.] ¶ 8.)

Petitioner appears to challenge various Department regulations related to staff misconduct, employee discipline, and administrative remedies for grievances and appeals. (Pet. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

Petitioner alleges that since approximately 2010, the Department has adopted several iterations of regulations addressing the procedure for handling grievances and appeals submitted by incarcerated persons, among other things. (Pet. ¶¶ 16-25.)

Petitioner appears to allege that the regulations challenged here were adopted on an emergency basis on January 15, 2025. (Pet. ¶ 26.) Petitioner appears to further allege that the Department initiated the formal rulemaking process to adopt the regulations on April 18, 2025. (Pet. ¶ 26, Exh. 1 [Notice of Change to Regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]. Petitioner alleges, “Subsequently, rather than issue the regulations challenged here formally, the [Department] readopted the regulations adopted by emergency action on 1/15/2025.

This emergency readoption occurred 6/10/2025.” (Pet. ¶ 26.) Petitioner appears to allege that the regulations at issue were not adopted pursuant to the formal rulemaking procedure and instead “the [Department] readopted the emergency regulations a second time on 9/09/2025 with a deadline established to submit a certificate of compliance to the OAL and Secretary of State by 12/09/2025.” (Pet. ¶ 27.)

Petitioner alleges that as of January 12, 2025, the Department had not submitted the certificate of compliance “and therefore the challenged regulations are repealed by operation of law.” (Pet. ¶ 28.)

Petitioner also appears to allege that the challenged regulations and “[t]he previous regulations” conflict with the state Constitutional guarantee of the people’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances. (Pet. ¶¶ 29-32.)

Petitioner asserts three causes of action (1) traditional mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085; (2) declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060; and (3) declaratory relief under Government Code section 11350.

Legal Standard

In a mandamus proceeding, the respondent may challenge the sufficiency of a petition for writ of mandate by filing a demurrer. (May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1323.) A petition for writ of mandate is subject to a demurrer on the same grounds as a civil complaint. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1109; Rodriguez v. Municipal Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 521, 526.) “A demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the pleading.” (Cedar Fair, LP. v. County of Santa Clara (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1159.)

The court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken” (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725), “ but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “[T]he... plaintiff’s ability to prove [the pleading's] allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

court....” (Cedar Fair, L.P. v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1159, quotations, citations omitted.) In considering a demurrer, the court must determine whether the pleading, standing alone, states a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title. Guar Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.) The court should overrule a demurrer if the facts alleged in a complaint or petition are sufficient to state a cause of action. (Ibid.)

Discussion

Respondents demur on the grounds that none of the Petitioner’s causes of action are supported by sufficient factual allegations.

No opposition to the demurrer was received, which the Court may construe as a concession to the merits. ((D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the demurrer.

To the degree Petitioner alleges that the Department failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Department requests judicial notice of formal rulemaking actions culminating in the adoption of the challenged regulations and their filing with the Secretary of State. (Resp. RJN Exh. 1-5.) Respondents argue these documents establish that the regulations at issue were adopted in compliance with the APA, contradicting Petitioner’s allegations that they were adopted on an emergency basis only and that no certificate of compliance was submitted to the OAL.

The Court agrees. Petitioner’s challenge to Respondents’ compliance with the APA appears to be based on the allegation that “[a]s of January 12, 2025 [sic], the CDCR has failed to submit the required certificate of compliance and therefore the challenged regulations are repealed as a matter of law.” (Pet. ¶ 28.) However, the Court takes judicial notice of the Notice of Approval and Certificate of Compliance issued by the OAL on January 22, 2026, for the regulations Petitioner challenges here. (Resp. RJN Exh. 1.) Thus, to the degree Petitioner alleges that the regulations are invalid based on the asserted absence of OAL’s Certificate of Compliance, the claim fails as a matter of law.

Respondents next argue that the Petition fails to state a claim based on Petitioner’s allegations that the challenged regulations exceed Respondents’ statutory grant of regulatory authority. Petitioner alleges that Respondents “failed to comply with Gov. Code 11342.2 because the regulations challenged here are inconsistent and in conflict with other controlling law and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of Penal Code § 5058 since Petitioner, and other similarly situated persons do not even have a right to a grievance procedure.” (Pet. ¶ 40.) As

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

relevant here, Penal Code section 5058 authorizes the Department’s director to “prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of the prisons[.]” (Pen. Code, § 5058, subd. (a)(1).)

As Respondents argue, the Petition fails to identify the particular elements of the challenged regulations which allegedly conflict with the broad grant of regulatory authority under Penal Code section 5058. Nor does the Petition specify the provisions of the regulations that allegedly violate the Constitutional guarantee regarding the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Respondents also point out that the regulations at issue here do provide a grievance process for incarcerated persons. For example, Section 3481 of the challenged regulations provides:

A claimant has the ability to submit one or more claims in a written grievance, a written reasonable accommodation request, or both (subject to the requirements in section 3482). In response, a claimant shall receive a written decision letter (as described in section 3483) clearly explaining the reasoning and the evidence in support of the decision for each claim. A claimant also has the ability to appeal one or more of those decisions (subject to the requirements in section 3484). In response, a claimant shall receive a written decision letter (as described in section 3485) clearly explaining the reasoning and the evidence in support of the decision for each claim.

(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 15, § 3481, subd. (a).)

Further, Section 3486 establishes a procedure for submitting a “claim alleging staff misconduct toward an incarcerated or supervised person.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3486, subd. (a); see also id at § 3486, subd. (a)(2) [“Any person can submit a claim alleging staff misconduct toward an incarcerated or supervised person when they believe departmental staff have engaged in behavior that results in a violation of law, regulation, policy, or procedure; or to actions contrary to an ethical or professional standard”].)

Thus, the regulations themselves establish that they contain the very types of grievance and claim procedures Petitioner alleges are absent or deficient. As the Petition fails to allege how the procedures established by the regulations are Constitutionally insufficient or how they exceed or conflict with Respondents’ statutory authority, the demurrer will be sustained. However, as this is the first challenge to Petitioner’s pleading, leave to amend will be granted.

Disposition

Respondents’ demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Petitioner shall file any amended pleading within 60 days of the effective date of this Minute Order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000023: HARRIS vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 06/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 3A

The Minute Order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 is required.