Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-01188776, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

The Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Petitioner, Darlene Matthews (“Petitioner”) is DENIED.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 related to her application for benefits under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program (“HUD-VASH”) which is administered by Respondent Orange County Housing Authority (“OCHA”).

“To obtain writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, a petitioner must demonstrate that the respondent has a clear, present, and ministerial duty that inures to the petitioner's benefit. [¶] Mandate does not lie to vindicate abstract rights. Mandamus is steeped in practicality. For this reason, there must be a present duty for a writ of mandamus to issue.”  (Cal. High-Speed Rail Auth. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 676, 707, 710.)

A ministerial duty supporting a writ of mandate is “an obligation to perform a specific act in a manner prescribed by law whenever a given state of facts exists, without regard to any personal judgment as to the propriety of the act.”  (Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 931, 952.)

“Traditional mandamus will not lie to control the discretion of a public official or agency; that is, to force the exercise of discretion in a particular manner.”  (Gordon v. Horsley (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 336, 350-351.”  As to traditional mandamus, “[t]he party who seeks a writ of mandate has the burden of proving that the official body which fails to perform an act has thus violated its duty toward him by denying him a clear and present right.”  (McIntyre v. Sonoma Valley Unified School District (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 170, 180.)

Here, Respondents are correct that Petitioner failed to establish any clear, present, and ministerial duty that OCHA violated and, thus, writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is not appropriate.  Petitioner does not establish that OCHA has a mandatory duty to accept redacted bank statements from HUD-VASH applicants.  Petitioner even concedes that HUD regulations permit a public housing agency (“PHA”), such as OCHA, to reject applicants’ income verification documentation if the document has been altered, mutilated, is illegible, or if it appears to be forged.  (Petition ¶ 34.)  Petitioner also admits that OCHA has discretion to require applicants to submit documents it determines are necessary for the administration of the HUD-VASH program.  (Petition ¶ 49.)  As OCHA is under no obligation to accept Petitioner’s redacted bank statements and as the act of whether to accept redacted bank statements is discretionary, Petitioner’s claim for mandamus relief under section 1085 fails.  (See Gordon v. Horsley (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 336, 350-351.)

Petitioner also contends that OCHA has a duty to administer the HUD-VASH program in a way that is not unnecessarily burdensome or invasive of applicant’s privacy rights.  (Petition ¶ 47.)  Petitioner fails to cite any evidence or authority whatsoever supporting her argument.  In addition, as noted, “[m]andate does not lie to vindicate abstract rights.”  With respect to this claim, as Respondents state, Petitioner has not identified a clear, present, and ministerial duty that this Court can order OCHA to perform.

Even if Petitioner properly alleged an obligation to perform a specific act, and thus relief under section 1085 might be appropriate, Plaintiff failed to establish that OCHA’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or failed to follow the procedure required by law.”  (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 594.)  Petitioner offers only the conclusory statements that transaction-specific debit information “has no bearing on a person’s eligibility for HUD-VASH benefits” and “OCHA’s document production policy creates barriers to veterans households’ ability to get the help they need…”  (Petition ¶¶ 5-6.)  No evidence or authority is offered to support these statements.

As Respondents note, OCHA is responsible for the appropriate use of federal funds, which includes accurately determining whether an applicant for the program is “income-eligible.”  (See 24 C.F.R. § 982.201; see also, 24 C.F.R. §§ 960.259(c)(1) and 982.516; RJN, Exh. A at Chapters 5-I.C, 7-I.D and 14.I.A.)  Thus, because OCHA is required to determine whether an applicant is income-eligible and required to verify income and assets, their decision to require unredacted bank statements from applicants cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious.

Accordingly, the Petition is denied.

Respondents’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.  (Evid. Code § 452(b).)

Respondent is ordered to give notice of this ruling.