Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cox v. Superior Court (Scott Kernan)

California Court of Appeals, Third District

July 22, 2016

ERNEST L. COX, Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AMADOR COUNTY, Respondent; SCOTT KERNAN, as Secretary, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest

          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. Superior Court No. 15 CV 9354, No. 15 HC 1760, Steve Hermanson, Judge.

          Petition granted.

Page 856

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 857

         COUNSEL

          Ernest L. Cox, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

         No appearance for Respondent.

         Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Jennifer A. Neill, Assistant Attorney General, Jessica N. Blonien and Yun Hwa Harper, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Parties in Interest.

         Opinion by Nicholson, Acting P. J., with Robie and Murray, JJ., concurring.

          OPINION

          [205 Cal.Rptr.3d 189] NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

          Petitioner Ernest L. Cox is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. He filed a civil complaint against real parties in interest, officials and employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), seeking monetary damages. Simultaneously, he filed a petition for relief from the government claims filing requirement. Respondent superior court deemed the civil complaint to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court then denied. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court, asserting respondent superior court erred in deeming the civil complaint to be a habeas corpus petition and that the court must consider his petition for relief from the government claims filing requirement on its merits. Real parties in interest concede respondent superior court erred. We agree, and order the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.

         [205 Cal.Rptr.3d 190] BACKGROUND

         Petitioner filed a civil complaint against officials and employees of CDCR. The complaint is not a model of clarity, but in general alleges claims of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of due process. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages; injunctive relief, including directing CDCR to develop training regarding sexual harassment, and dismissing prison discipline imposed on petitioner; and a judicial declaration that a prison regulation regarding unlawful influence is vague and uncertain. Simultaneously, petitioner filed a petition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.