A former teacher's relentless battle to regain his teaching credential has hit another roadblock. Protus Nkwana Taniform filed a complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, on June 27, 2024, against the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Taniform's troubles began in August 2016 when one of the Bay Area school districts discovered that he had allowed an uncredentialed individual, Emaline Abumbi, to use his substitute teacher profile. Abumbi worked at six schools using Taniform’s credentials on 27 days when he was not teaching. When confronted, Abumbi initially claimed she was Taniform but later admitted to using his profile with his permission and said he offered her a portion of his earnings for those days. The district terminated Taniform and reported him to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
In November 2016, the Commission launched an investigation into Taniform's conduct. Initially denying any wrongdoing, Taniform later alleged that friends had fraudulently used his credentials. Despite Abumbi recanting her statement under pressure from Taniform’s attorney and blaming other individuals instead, an administrative law judge found both Taniform and Abumbi’s testimonies not credible. The judge concluded that Taniform engaged in unprofessional conduct and acts of moral turpitude, leading to the revocation of his teaching credential in 2018.
Taniform has since made multiple attempts to overturn this decision. In March 2019, he filed a petition for writ of mandate in San Francisco Superior Court challenging the Commission’s decision but was denied. He petitioned again in May 2020 for reinstatement but faced another denial from the Commission due to insufficient evidence of rehabilitation and failure to appreciate the seriousness of his past misconduct. A second petition for writ of mandate filed in Alameda County Superior Court in June 2021 also met with rejection.
Undeterred, Taniform made another attempt in May 2022 by petitioning for reinstatement again. The Commission denied this request as well, citing ongoing concerns about his rehabilitation efforts and lack of convincing documentation proving such rehabilitation. His subsequent appeal for reconsideration was also turned down.
In June 2023, Taniform filed yet another petition for writ of mandate which is currently under review. The trial court denied this third petition along with additional claims including retaliation and negligence. Representing himself in court, Taniform appealed once more but failed to present sufficient evidence or legal arguments to reverse the judgment.
The case underscores how judgments are presumed correct unless error is demonstrated through reasoned argument supported by citations from records and legal authority. Self-represented litigants like Taniform are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding these requirements.
Representing himself throughout these proceedings without success highlights both the complexity and rigor involved in legal battles over professional credentials within educational institutions.
The attorneys involved include those representing the Commission on Teacher Credentialing while Judge Rodriguez presided over this case along with concurring judges Tucher and Simons under Case ID A169162.