Government Liability Update

Improper Screening of Administrative Appeals May Excuse Inmates from Exhausting Administrative Remedies under PRLA

In Sapp v. Kimbrall, published September 27, 2010, the 9th Circuit held that an inmate may be excused from the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that an inmate exhaust the prison’s internal administrative remedies before suing for prison conditions, if the prison officials screen out the inmate’s administrative appeals for improper reasons.  Such screening renders the administrative remedies “effectively unavailable.”  To fall within the exception, the inmate must establish that he actually filed a grievance that, if pursued through all levels, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim he seeks to bring in court; and that prison officials screened his grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations.  The court reviewed the plaintiff’s grievances and appeals, and concluded he had failed to establish these two elements.

Two New Cases Interpret Mobilehome Park Conversion Statute

Two cases from the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4, both published on August 31, 2010, address Government Code § 66427.5, which prescribes regulations for owners of mobilehome parks who seek to convert their units from rental to tenant ownership. 

Colony Cove Properties, L.L.C. v. City of Carson addressed a local ordinance that interpreted the survey provision in § 66427.5.  The statute prescribes that the owner must conduct a survey of the residents concerning the planned conversion; and that the local public entity reviewing the conversion application must consider the survey results in ruling on the application.  The 2nd DCA ruled that an ordinance that provided applications would be presumed bona fide if a certain number of residents voted in favor of conversion was preempted by § 66427.5.   In that regard, the court followed another DCA’s decision in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270.  The court declined to follow the portion of Sequoia Park, however, that implied all local regulation of the matter was preempted.  The court held that § 66427.5 required the local entity to take the survey results into consideration when ruling on applications.  The court appealed to the legislature for further guidance to public entities on how the survey should be considered.

In Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, the court analyzed a conflict between § 66427.5 and the stricter requirements that Government Code § 65590 -- part of the Mello Act, which governs coastal development and seeks to preserve low-cost housing -- puts on mobilehome park conversions.  The court determined that the Mello Act and the Coastal Act preempted § 66427.5; and that local authorities must ensure owner compliance with those acts in addition to § 66427.5.