Gray v. County of Riverside

Filed 4/10/06 Gray v. County of Riverside CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher A. Gray, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Donna Algren, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel, Joe S. Rank, Assistant County Counsel, and Christian T. Kim, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Christopher Gray and Donna Algren (plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. We affirm.

Background

Gray is the owner of approximately 11 acres of land in rural Riverside County.^[1] Present on the property in 2002 were various inoperable vehicles, dilapidated mobile homes and travel trailers, and assorted car parts, tires, and miscellaneous rubbish. The County of Riverside (County) initiated nuisance abatement proceedings. After various evidentiary hearings before an administrative hearing officer and the County Board of Supervisors, the conditions on the property were declared a nuisance and ordered abated. In June 2003, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court. The court denied the petition on June 18, 2004. Plaintiffs appealed.

Plaintiffs assert the following legally cognizable arguments: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the administrative decisions; (2) enforcement of the County ordinances deprived plaintiffs of their right to â€