Did the California corrections agency exceed the bounds of its statutory authority when they wrote an administrative regulation without any sort of predicate timeframe?

Can a state law without a timeframe for property reissuance, pass the reasonableness test? What would constitute an unreasonable delay in that context?

Can review courts safely defer to administrative interpretation that does not exist? Does the omission of a substantive predicate —to guide decision makers — constitute an ambiguity and/or a failure to interpret (the governing authority) for Chevron purposes?

Does an agency actually possess discretion to promulgate and then refuse to amend.., one sided administrative codes —those which result in casual and often deprivations of prisoner 's chattels?

Is the term ministerial duty strictly limited to the text of agency-regulations —under a state's administrative procedures —or can it be derived also from duties arising out of statutory and/or constitutional provisions?

Upon refusing to grant relief, did the California Court of Appeal avoid some issues, confuse others and in general, fail to narrowly frame the primary questions presented in their opinion?

Could a more fair procedure be ordered into place to prevent the exact sort of judicial bias, appurtenant to the lower court proceedings?

Did the California corrections agency exceed the bounds of its statutory authority?