Corrections rule in California

2005(Griggs, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 347 .) We advised that “unless there is substantial reason for transferring a petition it should be entertained and resolved in the court where filed.” (Ibid.) In applying those standards, we held that a habeas corpus petition—claiming that the Department of Corrections’ error in noting a prior conviction in its records prevented the petitioner’s assignment to work camp—could be resolved as efficiently by the court in the county where the petitioner was incarcerated as by any other court.

1993Apart from institutional concerns, petitioner also asserts a duty to override Andrews’s lack of consent based on the decision of Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. 97 , in which the United States Supreme Court concluded “that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ [citation] proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” (Id., at p. 104 [ 50 L.Ed.2d at p. 260 ]; cf. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3351 [under California Department of Corrections rule, physician may administer unconsented medical treatment in emergency “to sav

1993Apart from institutional concerns, petitioner also asserts a duty to override Andrews’s lack of consent based on the decision of Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. 97 , in which the United States Supreme Court concluded “that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ [citation] proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” (Id., at p. 104 [ 50 L.Ed.2d at p. 260 ]; cf. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3351 [under California Department of Corrections rule, physician may administer unconsented medical treatment in emergency “to sav

1990The court responded to Keely's claim that he was being punished under a vague standard as follows: "A similar provision in subdivision (t) of section 19572 of the Government Code was upheld as necessary and neither vague nor uncertain in Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507, 512 .

1982In In re Reynolds (1979) 25 Cal.3d 131 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 892 , 599 P.2d 86 ], the Supreme Court considered the Director of Corrections’ rule which permitted prisoners to wear a small lapel-type button proclaiming membership in an authorized group, but precluded prisoners from wearing a prisoners union lapel button because it was not an authorized group.

1982In In re Reynolds (1979) 25 Cal.3d 131 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 892 , 599 P.2d 86 ], the Supreme Court considered the Director of Corrections’ rule which permitted prisoners to wear a small lapel-type button proclaiming membership in an authorized group, but precluded prisoners from wearing a prisoners union lapel button because it was not an authorized group.