“The writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1102; County of Sutter v. Super. Ct. (1922) 188 Cal. 292, 295.) It “may be issued by any court to an inferior tribunal or to a corporation, board, or person, in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1103(a).)

A court acts in excess of its jurisdiction, as that term is used in determining whether the writ of prohibition will issue, if it acts in violation of a statute defining its powers. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d. 280, 291.) Acts simply ministerial in their nature, and in no sense judicial, cannot be reached by prohibition. (Taylor v. Board of Election Commrs. (1880) 54 Cal. 404, 406.)

Legal Standard

A writ of prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain enforcement of a law or ordinance invalid on its face. (Chambers v. Municipal Court (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 904, 907.) It is only where the inferior tribunal is about to do some act unauthorized by law that the writ will lie; it is a preventive, rather than a corrective, remedy, and issues only to restrain the commission of a future act and not to undo an act already performed. (Hevren v. Reed (1899) 126 Cal. 219, 222; Hull v. Super. Ct. (1883) 63 Cal. 179; Havemeyer v. Super. Ct. (1890) 84 Cal. 327, 394.)

If the court has jurisdiction over both the crime and the person of the defendant, prohibition is not available to restrain or correct mere errors in procedure, such as rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, since such errors can be corrected on appeal. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 287.) “If the lower court has power to make a correct determination of a particular issue, it clearly has power to make an incorrect decision, subject only to appellate review and not to restraint by prohibition. Hence, in examining the authorities, we must conclude that in those situations in which a writ of prohibition was issued, the particular action restrained was one beyond the jurisdiction of the court to take.” (Id. at 286.)

“It is the universal rule that mere error, irregularity, or mistake in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction does not justify a resort to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, and that a writ of prohibition never issues to restrain a lower tribunal from committing mere error in deciding a question properly before it; or, as it has sometimes been said, the writ of prohibition cannot be converted into, or made to serve the purpose of, an appeal, writ of error, or writ of review to undo what already has been done. This is true both because there has been no usurpation or abuse of power and because there exist other adequate remedies. Thus, when jurisdiction is clear, an erroneous decision in ruling on the sufficiency of the petition or complaint, or on a motion to dismiss, or on matters of defense, or in rendering judgment, is not ground for a writ of prohibition.” (42 Am.Jur. 165, 166; Lord v. Super. Ct. (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 855; Howard v. Super. Ct. (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 784.)