Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV03771, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03771    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: I

This is essentially a civil rights case.  Plaintiff sought to file a document in court.  The court form requires an address and the clerk’s office refused to accept the document without an address.  Plaintiff therefore put the address where he maintains a post office box even though that is not where he lives.  Plaintiff, who is unhoused, does not have a physical residence address.  When plaintiff added the address of the post office box, the clerk accepted the document for filing and it was filed.  Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the requirement that a street address be included on filings is unconstitutional as applied because those without such addresses cannot file an action in court.  Defendant demurs.

The court agrees with defendant that, under the facts as alleged, the case cannot go forward and the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  However, a few words on reasoning are in order.

First, the address requirement is important.  The opposing party and the court both need a way to communicate with the plaintiff.  The court often sends notices—it needs to have a place to send them.  The opposing party needs to serve the plaintiff with anything filed in court.  That party needs a way to do so.  The alternative is that the opposing party would have a series of ex parte communications with the court, which obviously raises significant due process problems.  Or the court may issue orders and enforce them of which the plaintiff is unaware.  That is a due process problem.

But that said, it is also a due process problem to close the courthouse doors to the unhoused.  Those with no physical address cannot truthfully put down a physical address.  To say that they cannot bring an action in court raises significant constitutional questions in the court’s mind, both in terms of the US Constitution and the California Constitution.  The court is unsure whether this is a problem that the court can fix or one that needs a legislative solution.  But whatever the means or methods, it is a budding problem if certain members of our society are denied recourse to the courts because of their unhoused status.  Some solution is required.

Under other circumstances, then, this might be a proper lawsuit.  But defendant makes a compelling point.  In this case, plaintiff was able to provide an address.  It was not a residence address, but the law does not necessarily require a residence address.  And the clerk did accept the pleading for filing, so the courthouse doors in fact were open.  Given that, the court does not believe that this case presents a proper vehicle to raise or resolve the issue plaintiff raises, although the court agrees that it may be an issue that is worth addressing.Critically, defendant also contends that plaintiff is not complaining that he had to put down a residence address, but rather that he had to put down the address where the incident occurred.  That is not how the court read the complaint (although it is consistent with the screenshot in the pleading), but in the court’s mind, if the issue is only that the address where the alleged incident occurred is required, that would violate no rights.  The incident occurred where it did; it would not matter whether the plaintiff has a residence address or not.  However, the court need not reach the question whether that is plaintiff’s complaint here because, in any event, plaintiff was able to put down an address and the clerk accepted the document.  And, critically, if the court already has a plan in place to take care of the street address issue, then there is simply no issue here at all in the court's mind.

Defendant also contends that all of the government entities and officials are covered by immunity.  That may well be the case and, if so, it would protect them from a damages award.  Indeed, the court believes that such is very likely the case, although the court need not reach the issue.  What the immunity would not cover, though, would be a request for injunctive relief.  Defendant further asserts that the claim is improper because plaintiff did not comply with the Government Tort Claims Act.  That, too, seems meritorious and would give rise to sustaining the demurrer.  The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND on that alternative ground.

For now, though, because this case simply does not properly present a live issue, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  Defendant to prepare the order of dismissal and present it to the court within 15 court days.