Lopez v. Lujan CA5

Filed 10/23/26 Lopez v. Lujan CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOSE T. LOPEZ, F090646 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 24CU0481) v. G. LUJAN, as Grievance Coordinator, etc., OPINION Defendant and Respondent. THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. Burns, Judge. (Retired Judge of Fresno Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Jose T. Lopez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Sara J. Roman, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone and Van Kamberian, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Guerra, J.  Jose T. Lopez, an incarcerated prisoner, filed a petition for writ of mandamus or mandate in the trial court. Lopez sought a court order requiring G. Lujan,1 a grievance coordinator at the prison where Lopez was incarcerated, to process a grievance Lopez had allegedly submitted to the prison’s grievance office. The court denied Lopez’s writ petition on grounds Lopez had not in fact submitted the alleged grievance and Lujan was therefore not required to process it. Lopez appealed. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Lopez’s Writ Petition and Lujan’s Answer On November 14, 2024, Lopez, who was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran, filed a “petition for a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief” (capitalization omitted), in the Kings County Superior Court. In his writ petition, Lopez alleged that he submitted a prison grievance on May 20, 2024. He contended that Lujan, the prison’s grievance coordinator, had failed to respond to the grievance within 60 days, in violation of Lujan’s “responsibility and duty” under Code of California Regulations, title 15, section 3483, subdivision (g) (section 3483(g)).2 In his writ petition, Lopez requested the trial court to, among other things, (1) declare that Lujan had violated section 3483(g), and (2) issue a writ of mandamus “[c]ommanding [Lujan] to immediately comply” with section 3483(g). Lopez attached to his writ petition, a letter dated August 25, 2024, that he sent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Appeals (office of appeals) 1 The record reflects two spellings for this party’s last name: Lujuan and Lujan. We use “Lujan” in this opinion because that is the spelling reflected in the party’s own submissions. 2 Section 3483(g) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Grievance Coordinator shall ensure that a written decision letter is issued no later than 60 calendar days after receipt of [a] grievance.” 2. inquiring about the status of his grievance. In the letter, Lopez had described the grievance at issue as relating to a rules violation report dated February 23, 2024. Lopez further attached to his writ petition the office of appeals’ response to his status inquiry. The office of appeals’ response stated that “there was insufficient information” in Lopez’s letter for that office “to take appropriate action to assist” him. Notably, Lopez did not attach a copy of the alleged grievance to his writ petition. On February 18, 2025, Lujan filed an answer to Lopez’s writ petition. In his answer, Lujan noted that Lopez had not attached a copy of his alleged May 20, 2024, grievance to his writ petition. B. The Parties’ Briefs to the Trial Court On April 25, 2025, Lujan filed a brief opposing Lopez’s writ petition. In his opposing brief, Lujan noted: “The record demonstrates that Lopez did not file … a grievance [as alleged] [and] [p]rison [o]fficials cannot respond to a grievance that was not filed.” Lujan’s brief concluded: “Lopez is not entitled to mandamus relief because he cannot show that [Lujan] failed to comply with a ministerial duty to respond to a grievance submitted on or about May 20, 2024. The [c]ourt should deny the petition.” Lujan submitted a declaration in support of his brief. Lujan confirmed in his declaration that he “presently h[e]ld the position of [g]rievance [c]coordinator” at SATF. He further confirmed that Lopez had been “housed at SATF since July 7, 2023” and that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) had a grievance process “in place for incarcerated individuals.” Lujan added that “SATF maintains a record” of grievances submitted by SATF inmates. He attested that he “maintain[ed] records associated with grievances” and “coordinate[d] the processing of grievances.” Lujan also noted: “When a grievance is submitted to the grievance coordinator’s office for review, it is assigned a log number, regardless of its disposition, for tracking purposes and an initial determination of the issue is made.” 3.  Lujan stated in his declaration that he had confirmed that Lopez “received a rules violation report dated February 23, 2024, with a log number of 7416778.” Lujan also averred: “A search of our records kept in the ordinary course of business revealed that [Lopez] ha[d] not submitted any grievance related to a rules violation report dated February 23, 2024, or regarding a rules violation report with a log number of 7416778.” Lujan further averred: “There is also no record of [Lopez] submitting a grievance to the SATF Office of Grievances on or about May 20, 2024. Moreover, there is no record of [Lopez] having submitted any grievance to the SATF Office of Grievances in 2024.” Finally, Lujan noted in his declaration that upon review of Lopez’s writ petition, “a grievance … was opened to review his allegation that he [had] submitted a grievance, regarding a rules violation [report] dated February 23, 2024, which [grievance] did not receive a response.” Lujan attached to his declaration a copy of the decision the office of grievances had issued as to Lopez’s claim. The decision noted that Lopez’s claim was denied because there was no record of submission of the alleged grievance. On June 2, 2025, Lopez filed a brief in support of his writ petition; he attached a declaration to his brief. Lopez did not provide substantive testimony in his declaration; rather he indicated that various parts of his brief should be considered as “[e]vidence by way of this declaration.” On August 1, 2025, the parties submitted the matter on their respective briefs. C. Trial Court’s Ruling On October 13, 2025, the trial court issued a written ruling denying Lopez’s writ petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.3 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” 4.  The trial court explained: “The [p]etition fails to state a claim for writ of mandate. [Lopez] does not show that [Lujan] breached a duty. In a mandate proceeding, [the] [p]etitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which mandate is based. (California Corr[ectional] Peace Officers Ass[n]. v. State Pers[onnel] Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 11[3]3, 1153–1154.) “[Lopez] alleges that [Lujan] violated [his] mandatory legal duty under [section 3483(g)] in failing to respond, within sixty (60) calendar days, to [Lopez’s] grievance filed on May 20, 202[4]. Here, however, other than [Lopez’s] assertion that he submitted the grievance and did not receive a response, [Lopez] fails to present any evidence demonstrating that [he] filed the grievance on the date alleged. In contrast, [Lujan] asserts that a search of [relevant] records reveals that no such grievance was filed.” The trial court credited Lujan’s declaration testimony and found that Lopez had failed to establish that he had in fact submitted a grievance in connection with the rules violation report issued to him on February 23, 2024. The court concluded: “Accordingly, the court finds that there is no factual basis for a finding that [Lujan] failed to perform [his] ministerial duty of processing the grievance.” The court therefore denied Lopez’s petition for writ of mandate. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Law and Standard of Review A petitioner seeking a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 “ ‘is required to show the existence of two elements: a clear, present and usually ministerial duty upon the part of the respondent, and a clear, present and beneficial right belonging to the petitioner in the performance of that duty.’ ” (Mednik v. State Dept. of Health Care Services (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 631, 639.) “On appeal, the trial court’s factual findings must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. However, legal issues present a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” (Shelden v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 458, 463.) 5. II. Lopez Has Not Shown Reversible Error by the Trial Court Lopez makes several arguments, none of which are adequately developed and supported by appropriate citations to the record and to relevant legal authorities. Accordingly, we conclude Lopez has forfeited his arguments on appeal. (See In re S.C., (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 [“[I]t is appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error”]; Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 [“We consider all points asserted in this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported by ‘adequate factual or legal analysis’ ”].) Lopez’s arguments also fail on the merits. Lopez argues, without adequate citation to the record: “The trial [c]ourt improperly relied on the absence of a record to prove the absence of an act, especially when the [p]etitioner provided evidence of mailing/submission.” (See City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [“any reference [to a matter in the record] in [a litigant’s] brief must be supported by a citation”].) He adds: “The trial [c]ourt erred by treating the lack of a CDCR tracking number as conclusive proof that the [p]etitioner never submitted the [grievance].” He further states: “[Lujan’s] declaration only proves that the grievance was not logged; it does not prove it was not delivered.” He posits that his letter to CDCR’s office of appeals is “ ‘positive evidence’ of an act, which should outweigh [Lujan’s] ‘negative evidence,’ ” that is, “the mere absence of a computer log.” In addition, Lopez argues, somewhat confusingly: “The [c]ourt failed to consider the ‘mailbox rule’ or the possibility of administrative mishandling, which is a misapplication of the law regarding exhaustion of remedies.” He also argues that the fact that prison officials “open[ed] [a] new log” regarding the allegations in his writ petition amounts to an admission that “a procedural breakdown [had] occurred.” 6.  However, here the trial court credited Lujan’s declaration testimony and made a factual finding that Lopez had not submitted a grievance on May 20, 2024, regarding a rules violation report dated February 23, 2024.4 We review the court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and conclude that this finding is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, specifically by Lujan’s declaration. Lujan testified in his declaration, “A search of our records kept in the ordinary course of business revealed that [Lopez] ha[d] not submitted any grievance related to a rules violation report dated February 23, 2024.” Given the trial court’s factual finding that Lopez had not submitted the alleged grievance, it properly concluded that “there is no factual basis for a finding that [Lujan] failed to perform [his] ministerial duty of processing the grievance.” Lopez’s arguments therefore fail. DISPOSITION The trial court’s order is affirmed. Lujan is awarded his costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).) 4 Specifically, the trial court noted: “[T]he court … finds that in accordance with the [d]eclaration of G. Lujan, [p]etitioner fails to establish that he submitted a [g]rievance in connection with [a rules violation report] dated February 23, 2024.” 7.