T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SU E J O N ES, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. CI TY OF ORAN GE COVE, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 16507 D. C. No . 1 : 0 8 c v - 0 7 7 5 DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e nni s L . B e c k, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r11, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an d T A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff S ue Jones app ea l s f

rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o D ef

endantC i ty of O rang e C ov e. S um m ary j ud gm entw as base d s o le lyo n J o n e s ’ f

a ilu r e to f

ile ap e titio n f

o raw r it o f

a d m in is tr a tiv e m a n d a m u s to chal l enge the C i ty C ou nci l ’ s dec i si on . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthi s f ai l ure 

# FI LED OC T 20 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

r e nde r s the C i tyC ounc i l ’ s de c i s i on r e s ju d ic a ta . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd. U nde rC a l i f

orni al a w , apa rtyc ha l l e ngi ng a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on “ m a de a s ar e s ul tof

apr oc e e di ng i n w hi c h byl a w ahe a r i ng i s r e qui r e d t o be gi ve n, e v id e n c e is r e q u ir e d to b e ta k e n , a n d d is c r e tio n in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f f a c ts is ve s t e d, ” i s ge ne r a l l yr e qui r e d t o f i l e ape t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

a dm i ni s tr a t i ve m a n d a m u s in o r d e rto c h a lle n g e th a t d e c is io n . C a l. C iv . P r o c . C o d e § 1 0 9 4 .5 ( a ) . O r a n g e C o v e M u n ic ip a l C o d e § 1 5 .1 7 .0 7 0 r e q u ir e d th e O r a n g e C o v e C ityC o u n c il t o h ol d a heari ng and t ake e vi dence w hen con si deri ng Jones’ appeal . U nd er C al i forni a l aw , i f aparty f ai l s t o fi l e f

or a w ri tof adm i ni stra t i ve m andam us w hen o n e is r e q u ir e d a n d , in s te a d , c o lla te r a llya tta c k s th e a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n in court , the adm i ni stra t i ve deci si on i s f i nal un der the do ctri ne of r e s ju d ic a ta . P atri ck Medi a G rp. , Inc. v. Cal . C oa stalC om m ’n , 11 C a l . R ptr . 2d 824, 839- 40 (C t . A pp . 19 92 ). W e genera l l y a ff ord col l at er al es t op pel ef fe ctt o m un i ci pal d e c is io n s m a d e w ith in C a lif o rn ia . Se e E i lr i c h v . R e m as , 8 3 9 F .2 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . I n r e s p o n s e t o a n o r d e rth a th e rb u i l d i n g b e r e p a i r e d o rr a z e d , J o n e s f i l e d two c o m p la in ts . I n o n e , J o n e s s o u g h t d a m a g e s a n d in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, a lle g in g , i nter a lia , vi ol at i on s of 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. In the se cond , Jones f i l ed a pl ea di ng ent i t l ed- 3-

“ W r i tof P r ohi bi t i on. ” D e s pi t e i t s t i t l e , w e c onc l ude tha tthi s “ W r i tof P r ohi bi t i on” se rves the pu rpose of aw ri tof adm i ni strat i ve m andam us. C al i forni a l aw prov i des thatw hen a pet i t i on for aw ri tof adm i ni stra t i ve m andam us i s f i l ed, “ [t ] he i nq ui ry i n such a cas e s hal l ext end t o the qu es t i on s w hether the re spon denthas proce eded w i tho ut , or i n exces s of j uri sdi ct i on ; w hether there w as a f ai r tri al ; and w hether th e r e w a s a n yp r e

ju d ic ia l ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” C a l. C iv . P r o c . C o d e § 1 0 9 4 .5 ( b ) . J one s ’ “ W r i tof

P r ohi bi t i on” t ouc he s on a l l thr e e of the i nqui r i e s pe rm i tt e d on a d m in is tr a tiv e m a n d a m u s . I n th is p le a d in g , J o n e s a lle g e s th a t th e C ityC o u n c il lack ed ju risd icti o n fo r its d ec isio n . S h e a lso alleg es th at th e C ity C o u n cil’ s deci si on w as po l i t i ca l l y m ot i vat ed, re as on abl y prom pt i ng an i nq ui ryi nt o w hether h er tri al w as fai r an d w h eth er th e C i ty C o u n ci l ab u sed i t s d i scret i o n . Jo n es al so r e q u e s ts th a t “th e c o u rt is s u e ap e r e m p to ryw r it . . . c o m m a n d in g r e s p o n d e n t to refrain fro m en fo rci n g ” th e d eci si o n th atsh e ch al l en g es. U nd erC al i forni a pl ea di ng rul es , “ nei ther m i sl abel i ng no r adefe ct i ve pray er w i l l bar r el i ef

j ust i fi ed by prop eral l egat i on s and proo f. ” P ec k’s L i qu ors, Inc. v. Su p eri o r C o u rt , 34 C al . R ptr. 73 5, 73 6 (C t . A pp . 19 63 ). T hu s, w here the subst ance of the pe t i t i one r ’ s a r gum e ntf orr e l i e f i s m i s c l a s s i f

i e d a s ape t i t i on f

orthe w r ong w r it, th e p e titio n s h o u ldb e tr e a te d a s ap e titio n f o rth e ap p r o p r ia te w r it. Se e, e . g. , B roden v. M

ari n Hum an e Soc’y , 8 3 C a l. Rp tr . 2 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 & n .3 ( C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) .- 4-

T he r e f or e , J one s ’ “ W r i tof

P r ohi bi t i on” s houl d be tr e a t e d a s ape t i t i on f oraw r i tof ad m i n i strat i v e m an d am u s. T he di stri ctcourterre d i n ref usi ng t o tre atthi s pl ea di ng as a pet i t i on for a w ri tof adm i ni stra t i ve m andam us. A cc ordi ng l y, the j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourt i s r e ve r s e d a nd the c a s e i s r e m a nde d t o the di s tr i c tc ourtf orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s di s pos i t i on. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.