XXXX

 

Petitioner, Pro Se

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXXXFOR THE COUNTY OF XXXX
XXXX,Petitioner, vs. XXXX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND CONNIE BECK Respondent	Case No.: ____________PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [Code Civ. Proc., XXXX]

PARTIES

1. Petitioner Aliza Conner is an individual, a resident of XXXX. Petitioner is the Authorized Representative of Dennis Conner, who died from stage 4 metastatic throat cancer on XXXX
2. Respondent XXXX County Department of Health and Human Services of address XXXX is an agency of the State of XXX.
3. Respondent Connie Beck is the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services.

JURISDICTIONAND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandate to set aside the Respondents’ decisions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
5. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395 because the Respondents are located in Humboldt County.
6. This action was timely filed within 30 days of the Civil Rights Department issuing its Appeal Determination dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against the Respondents. The Department sent the Appeal Determination letter on XXXX.

FACTS

7. Petitioner was forced to leave their apartment of 2 years 7 months when the building was condemned by Code Enforcement. Petitioner was given until XXX, to leave the building. XXX then asked their In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Supervisor about available resources. The Supervisor referred Petitioner to the Adult Protective Services (APS) for assistance.
8. Aliza then received a call from Latrice Watson from APS who notified Aliza that the APS agreed to pay a motel room in XXX Apartments for the Petitioner for the month of November, for about $3,000 a month. However, no tenant at XXX Apartments was willing to move out. Further, the APS had promised to get the Petitioner a U-Haul. However, they showed up on XXX with a SUV and a regular sized pickup truck. Petitioner were therefore unable to move all their property. Dennis paid for a storage unit there which amounted to $168.01. Further, on XXX Petitioner paid someone to remove the remaining property from the building.
9. Latrice Watson also informed XXXX that she did not want the Petitioner’s truck that was not running to be towed to the motel in XXXX. She said it would be an eyesore and told Petitioner that APS would be able to pay for the repairs “no matter what it takes to get it running” and pass smog. She even took Dennis’ registration paperwork with her so they can do a smog test and follow up with any needed repairs regarding smog. She was well aware of the mileage of over 300,000 miles. She was also aware it was a XXX Toyota pickup, an old truck. Petitioner had to get the truck towed back to the XXX parking lot on XXXX, from across the street where it was sitting in a neighbor’s driveway. Latrice wanted it back in the parking lot within the XXX premises so that Buddy’s Towing could tow the truck to Conti’s Automotive.
10. Consequently, Buddy’s towed the truck to Conti’s Automotive in Eureka on the November 5, 2021. This turned into a complete nightmare for Petitioner. They had just paid $275 for the registration on the truck at the DMV. Latrice told XXX later on XXX that XXX would do a diagnostic test and smog test on the truck.
11. On XXX sent an email to XXX stating that the APS could only pay $2000 the following month at the motel the Petitioner was in. XXX further stated that it was the last housing the APS could pay for as the APS needed to close the case as soon as possible.
12. On Monday XXX texted XXX that the truck would not pass a smog test because the truck was not even running. Further, on Wednesday, XXXX,XXX called XXXX and told her that the whole engine needed replaced and would cost $3000-$4000 for the engine replacement. Both Latrice and the secretary at Conti’s Automotive had previously told Petitioner that it was determined the engine was bad based on Conti’s mechanic conducting a fuel pressure test.
13. Dennis decided to call Conti’s because that did not sound right. He asked the secretary to speak to the mechanic XXXX informed Petitioner that the head and gaskets needed to be taken off and installed correctly which would be a 10-hour job! However, he did not say one thing about the engine needing to be replaced.
14. XXX texted XXX as soon as Petitioner got off the phone with XXX, and told her that he did not say anything about the engine needing replaced. She told Petitioner that she was going to arrange for Conti’s to take the truck to John’s Wreck Yard. Petitioner protested and said that they wanted Conti’s to repair the truck as she had taken it there. However, when XXXX called Conti’s Auto the day after speaking to the mechanic, the secretary informed Aliza that she could no longer speak to Petitioner about the truck.
15. On XXX, XXX said that even if the engine was replaced it still would not be guaranteed to run because it had different fuel injectors put in the truck. Contrary to XXX statement, Petitioner had just bought the correct 1988 Toyota pickup fuel injectors themselves. Her story changed so many times. Nothing regarding the cost of repairs versus value of the truck was ever discussed prior to Latrice having the truck towed to Conti’s. Latrice also had promised to pay $2000 towards the motel the Petitioner was staying at. This was promised independently of the truck. However, she began saying that APS could not help Petitioner anymore. She said the repairs would cost more than the truck was worth. Never was it said that a certain amount of money could be spent on repairs nor was it stated that the truck could be taken to a wreck yard. It was to be in running condition when it left Conti’s.
16. On Monday XXX, XXX said that APS would not help the Petitioner with the motel stay for December and would not pay for the truck. XXX told her that she wanted the truck running. This was only after Latrice stated Petitioner had to choose between the motel or the truck. Petitioner chose the truck. Latrice then told Petitioner that they would have to pay for towing it back to XXX or they would allow for it to be taken to the wreck yard.
17. Aliza then contacted Latrice’s supervisor who had it towed back to XXX because APS no longer wanted to allow the truck to be at Conti’s. Keri, who is an APS supervisor, informed XXX that they paid Conti’s Automotive $796.74, yet no repair was done to the truck. Latrice would not let Conti’s fix anything. Instead, she insisted that it was to be taken to John’s Wreck Yard.
18. Also on XXX sent Petitioner another email noting that the APS could not be able to pay for any further housing.
19. On XXXX, the Redwood Community Action Agency (“RCAA”) sent Petitioner a message acknowledging that Petitioner would be receiving a monthly rental subsidy plus a deposit dependent on the rental amount from RCAA, which would be in effect until XXXX.
20. By XXXX, the truck was still sitting on the side of the road in XXX, and was not running. XXX had to speak to XXX supervisor about this. XXXX wanted it to be taken to the wreck yard. This has been so stressful for Petitioner, especially after dealing with losing their apartment. XXXX has emphysema and is a stage 4 throat cancer survivor. He has chronic fatigue and chronic pain as a result of the chemotherapy and radiation he went through. He also has a history of double pneumonia. Latrice also promised Petitioner furniture vouchers to help them with their furniture purchases for the new apartment upon signing a lease. as well as help with a XXX to move our stuff out of the storage unit in XXXX to somewhere closer.
21. On XXXX sent an email to XXXX, the Supervisor, District 5, County of XXXX. In the email, XXX expressed concerns about the hardships they have been subjected to. XXX responded to the email on the same day, and stated that he had asked Respondent XXX, the head of the DHHS to resolve the issues raised in XXX email. However, by XXX, Petitioner had not heard any response from either Steve or XXX. XXX had to send a follow-up email on the same day to XXXX. XXX responded and stated that the Manager of the Program concluded that they had done all that they felt they could do given the circumstances. Connie further added that the matter would be sent to the compliance and quality assurance unit which would see if they had followed program guidelines. Connie also added that there were lots of funds and services provided including re-location benefits.
22. On January 4, 2022, Connie Beck requested a case review of the Petitioner’s case, at the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Quality Management services (QMS). On February 9, 2022, the QMS gave a report that the staff had gone beyond what was required of their position and scope of the program. However, the QMS justified the staffs’ actions as their ways to assist the Petitioner where they could. The QMS further held that the Petitioner had an unrealistic expectation towards the APS. Also, the QMS concluded that the staff had properly expended the funds.
23. The QMS maintained that Latrice was categorical on what expenses the APS would pay, and that there are no regulations that allow the APS to fix vehicles. It was also stated in the report that Latrice never violated any regulation, and that she went over and beyond her position to assist the Petitioner. Interestingly, the QMS turned everything against Petitioner and stated that Petitioner was responsible for their own woes because they made demands to live in rural areas where opportunities and prices are limited.
24. On XXXX, Petitioner received an email from Conti’s, which email noted expressly that the APS had stated that they would not pay for the replacement of the engine of the truck.
25. On XXX, XXX emailed the Redwood Community Action Agency seeking a fax stating the amount of the rental subsidy, and that said subsidy would be good for two years. The information was required by the property manager Christina at Six Rivers Property Management. However, the Redwood Community Action Agency responded by denying XXX request on the ground that they closed Petitioner’s case on XXX  due to no client contact. Nobody had contacted XXXX. She had been searching for an apartment to rent for almost four months. It was therefore not clear why the RCAA closed the case due to no response, yet Petitioner had no missed calls.
26. On XXX, Petitioner received communication from the DHHS QMS. The communication noted that DHHS was not able or required to fix the truck as it did not fall into the eligibility of services for Adult Protective Services.
27. On XXX, XXX  expressed her concerns to Connie Beck via email. XXX noted that the communication from the DHHS contained a lot of factual errors and inaccuracies. XXX stated that her instruction to Latrice was clear that Petitioner wanted the car repaired, since XXX had asked what the Petitioner wanted between the motel or the truck. Also, the mechanic himself stated that Latrice refused to pay for the repairs from the beginning. Connie responded and stated that the DHHS would not provide additional funding for the repairs. The report failed to address the fact that XXX told Petitioner in an email that APS would pay for the mechanic and towing.
28. On XXXX  requested a copy of the Service Plan from the APS. Keri Schrock, from the APS, refused to provide the Service Plan to XXX, on the ground that the information requested in confidential information. Keri further informed XXX that the staff at APS would not be responding to XXXX  phone calls or emails.
29. Again, on XXXX sent an email to Connie Beck notifying her of the upcoming hearing at the State Court. Aliza therefore requested Connie to provide a copy of the Petitioner’s case record. Connie denied XXX request.
30. On XXX, the XXX Country wrote to the XXX Department of Health Services, requesting a dismissal of the hearing of the Petitioner’s matter. The county alleged that the Regulation 19-005 of the Manual Policy only applies to public assistance programs.
31. On XXX, Petitioner again sent a records request to the DHHS. Petitioner requested the following information: APS records, psychological evaluations, Progress Notes, Discharge Summary, Housing Documentation, IHSS records, Consultations, and treatment plans. On XXX, the Deputy County Counsel sent Petitioner a letter in response to the records request. The Counsel stated that the requested records cannot be produced because they are confidential.
32. On XXX, the Civil Rights Department issued an Appeal Determination to XXX. The CRD denied Petitioner’s appeal of the DHHS’s conclusion.
33. On XXXX, Petitioner again requested for Case Records from XXX, from the Redwood Community Action Agency. Instead of providing the records, the RCAA asked Petitioner to contact the APS.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

CCCC

34. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
35. Civ. Code XXX provides in pertinent part that an agency shall not disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed to the individual to whom the information pertains.
36. In this action, Petitioner obtained a written authorization from her deceased husband, Dennis Conner.
37. Petitioner has shown how she severally requested for case records from the Respondents.
38. However, the Respondents refused to produce the case records on the grounds of confidentiality.
39. The referenced provision mandates the Respondents to produce the requested information if the information is disclosed to the individual it pertains. To satisfy this requirement, Dennis Conner provided a handwritten authorization, where he expressly gave Petitioner authority to act on his behalf.
40. It follows; confidentiality does not apply to the instant case, since Petitioner had express approval from the decedent.
41. Respondents are therefore in violation of Cal. Civ. Code XXX.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of MPP-Division 19

42. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
43. The Manual of Policies and Procedures Division 19, of the XXX Department of Social Services provides guidelines on the release of information to clients or their authorized representatives. Division 19, Section 19-005 provides in pertinent part that: “[i]nformation relating to eligibility that was provided solely by the applicant/recipient contained in application and other records made or kept by the county welfare department in connection with the administration of the public assistance program shall be open to inspection by the applicant/recipient or his/her authorized representative.” The provision further states that an APS client or his authorized representative “must be permitted access to written documents provided by the client, along with any documents the client was required to sign by the county.”
44. Regulation 19-005 further provides that the applicant for access to case records may inspect the case records including the entire case narrative except information subjected to lawyer-client privilege and information revealing the identity of the informer.
45. The referenced law mandates the Respondents to permit Petitioner’s access to the written documents pertaining Dennis Conner.
46. The referenced provisions further state that the Petitioner is entitled to access the entire case narrative. It is notable that none of the exceptions in Regulation 19-005 apply to the instant case.
47. Respondents are therefore in violation of MPP- Division 19.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of MPP 33-535 et seq

48. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
49. Regulation 33-535 of the APS provides for a Service Plan. Clause 3 of the Regulation provides in part that: the Service Plan shall identify the priorities and desired outcomes, strategies and resources to be used, identification of services to be offered, frequency and duration of the services, and the length of time the case is expected to remain open. The regulation also provides for the requirement for the client’s input in the development of the Service Plan. Further, Clause 5 mandates the APS worker to obtain the client’s signature signifying the client’s agreement with the plan. Under clause 9, the Service Plan shall be provided to the Client, if requested. Also, Regulation 33-545 provides that the APS worker must confirm that the plan is carried out in accordance with the client’s needs, and should modify the plan only in accordance with the Client’s consent.
50. First, the Respondents failed to involve Dennis or Petitioner in their decision making. For instance, Latrice told Petitioner that she was going to arrange for Conti’s to take the truck to John’s Wreck Yard. Petitioner protested and said that she wanted Conti’s to repair the truck as she had taken it there. However, when Aliza called Conti’s Auto the day after speaking to the mechanic, the secretary informed Aliza that she could no longer speak to Petitioner about the truck. The foregoing shows that the Respondents made decisions without considering Petitioner’s position.
51. Next, none of the Respondents obtained either Petitioner’s or Dennis’ consent and/or signature to the plans to avoid funding the repairs of the truck. The Respondents were obligated to ensure the plan is carried out in accordance with Dennis’ needs. Also, any modification to the plan should have followed Dennis’ consent.
52. Further, the Respondents failed to provide Petitioner or Dennis the Service Plan, even when Petitioner incessantly made requests for the same.
53. Respondents are therefore in violation of Regulation 33-535 et seq.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of XXXX & Inst Code § 15701.4

54. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
55. XXXX & Inst Code § 15701.4 defines “appropriate temporary protective services” as those services that are provided to ensure that the endangered adult is protected from the immediate risk of serious injury or death through services such as transportation.
56. By refusing to repair Dennis’ truck, the Respondents denied Dennis temporary protective services, in violation of XXXX  & Inst Code § 15701.4.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of XXXX & Inst Code § 15610 et seq

57. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
58. XXXX & Inst Code § 15610.35 provides goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering include transportation. Further, WIC § 15610.05 defines abandonment as the desertion or willful forsaking of an elder or a dependent adult by anyone having care or custody of that person under circumstances in which a reasonable person would continue to provide care and custody.
59. The refusal by the Respondents to repair Dennis’ truck amounts to denial of goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.
60. Petitioner further asserts that Respondents abandoned Dennis while he mostly needed the repair of the truck to facilitate transportation.
61. Respondents are therefore in violation of Regulation 15610.35.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of XXXX f & Inst Code § 4905 XXX

62. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
63. XXXX provides in pertinent part that “[n]o employee or agent of a facility, program, or service shall subject a person with a disability to reprisal or harassment or directly or indirectly take or threaten to take any action that would prevent the person, his or her legally authorized representative, or family member from reporting or otherwise bringing to the attention of the protection and advocacy agency any facts or information relative to suspected abuse, neglect, or other violations of the person’s rights.” The provision further states that: “[a]ny attempt to involuntarily remove from a facility, program, or service, or to deny privileges or rights without good cause to a person with a disability by whom or for whom a complaint has been made to the protection and advocacy agency, within 60 days after the date the complaint is made or within 60 days after the conclusion of any proceeding resulting from the complaint, shall raise a presumption that the action was taken in retaliation for the filing of the complaint.”
64. The Respondents, without good cause, denied Dennis transportation when they refused to repair the truck.
65. Further, the Respondents retaliated upon Petitioner and Dennis when they failed to communicate to Petitioner and Dennis, after Petitioner incessantly made attempts to get an explanation why the truck could not be repaired. It is therefore a reasonable presumption that the Respondents’ refusal to communicate with Petitioner is in retaliation to Petitioner’s complaints regarding the Respondents’ conduct.
66. Respondents are therefore in violation of 4905 (2021).

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Petitioner’s Due Process Right to A Fair Trial are at Stake

67. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
68. The right to a fair trial applies in both civil and criminal cases. As a minimum the right to fair trial includes the following fair trial rights in civil and criminal proceedings: the right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “the right to an impartial judge [is] among those ‘constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.'” XXX
69. The California Constitution, Article I, Section 7, provides: “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” (emphasis added). “Due Process of Law,” is defined as a procedural safeguard to ensure that life, liberty, or property is not taken without a fair process or procedure. “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive XXXX
70. A decision entered in violation of due process is a void judgment and should be dismissed and/or reversed. See XXXX.
71. In this case, the Respondents failed to consider the fact that XXXX  informed Petitioner that she did not want the Petitioner’s truck that was not running to be towed to the motel in XXXX. She said it would be an eyesore and told Petitioner that APS would be able to pay for the repairs “no matter what it takes to get it running” and pass smog. She even took Dennis’ registration paperwork with her so they can do a smog test and follow up with any needed repairs regarding smog. She was well aware of the mileage of over 300,000 miles. She was also aware it was a 1988 Toyota pickup, an old truck.
72. Respondents failed to acknowledge that Latrice reneged on her promise to do all it takes to ensure the truck was running.
73. Respondents also unjustly withheld Dennis’ Case Records, yet the law obligated them to produce them upon request.
74. It is further notable that in the Appeal Determination letter, no appeal rights were given. The director would also not discuss Petitioner’s issues of bias and inaccuracies contained within the report done by the compliance team. The County Civil Rights coordinator also denied Petitioner appeal rights as well.
75. The Respondents’ actions and/or inactions are a blatant violation of Petitioner’s due process rights to a fair trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

76. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs.
77. Respondents owed a duty of care to ensure Dennis, who was disabled and vulnerable, accessed care and attention.
78. Respondents breached said duty of care by making decisions that not only prejudiced Dennis, but also left him at risk of danger and harm.
79. Notably, the APS left Dennis and Petitioner with no housing in December leaving Dennis, whom APS works to protect, without a roof over his head, after promising $2000 toward the motel costs for the month of December. That was the most negligent and a violation of the Home Safe program (which was used for November’s funding of the motel) principles.
80. The Respondents also reneged on the promise made to Dennis and Petitioner, to repair the truck and ensure it is running. Their failure to honor their obligation denied Dennis transportation, which is drastic considering Dennis’ vulnerable condition.
81. As a proximate cause of the Respondents’ negligence, Petitioner and Dennis were denied housing and transportation, which situations further subjected Petitioner and Dennis to inter alia, emotional distress and harm.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:

1094. For a writ of mandate issued under the seal of this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 or in the alternative section 1085, and directing the Respondents to:
1095. Produce and/or Grant Petitioner access to all records of Dennis Conner.
1096. Compensate Petitioner for the cost and expense incurred in repairing the truck.

• Overturn the decision of Connie Beck to deny to prove the bias in the Compliance and Investigation report.

1798. XXXX

• For a declaratory judgment that the Respondent’s failure to repair Dennis Conner’s truck and to provide the Case Record is a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

1021. For Petitioner’s fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and any other applicable provisions of law.
1022. For a judicial review of Connie Beck’s decision, who denied additional funding for repairs, and failed to grant Petitioner’s request for a copy of the Petitioner’s case record.
1023. For such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

DATED: ___________

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________

XXXX

Petitioner, Pro Se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VERIFICATION

I, XXXX, declare:

I am the Petitioner in this action. I make this declaration of my own knowledge, and if called to testify thereto, I could and would competently testify.

I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus and know the contents thereof. The contents therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of XXXX that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this _____ day of XXXX, in XXXX, XXXX.

_______________________________

XXXX

Petitioner, Pro Se

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on ________, a copy of the foregoing Petition was filed in this court. I further certify that on the said date, a copy of foregoing Petition was mailed by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the Respondent’s addresses.

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________

XXXX

Petitioner, Pro Se

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )