Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV31354, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31354    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 27, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         William Leo Jackson v. Scott Nissley, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV31354           

MOTION FOR REMOVAL AND TRANSPORTATION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff William Leo Jackson, in pro per.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of March 25, 2025

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/27/24: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action by a self-represented litigant alleging that the Los Angeles Police Department impounded Plaintiff’s vehicle and then released it to an unknown, unauthorized third-party.

Plaintiff, as an incarcerated litigant, moves for an order requiring him to be removed from prison and transported to this Court to be present for scheduled hearings.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff, as an incarcerated litigant moves for an order requiring him to be removed from prison and transported to this Court to be present for scheduled hearings.

Plaintiff purports to bring this motion under Penal Code section 2625. However, that code section provides specifically for the right of a prisoner to be present for a matter adjudicating the prisoner’s parental or marital rights. (See Pen. Code § 2625.) Tellingly, while the Legislature has also provided for a prisoner to appear in Court for a criminal proceeding (Pen. Code §§ 2620-2622), no corresponding provision exists for civil matters. Instead, the Legislature has only authorized either in-prison deposition (Pen. Code § 2623) or appearance via two-way audiovisual communication (Pen. Code § 2624.)

Further, although Plaintiff argues that his rights to due process and access to the Courts under the federal and state Constitutions require his in-person appearance in this matter, none of the authorities referenced by Plaintiff appears to support his position. In fact, several of the cases cited appear to have no bearing on this point whatsoever. (See People v. Puluc-Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894; Hines v. Enomoto (9th Cir. 1981) 658 F.2d 667; In re Berry (1968 ) 68 Cal.2d 137.) Certainly, access to the Court is a fundamental right and Plaintiff must be permitted to meaningfully participate in these proceedings. (See generally Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319; Bounds v. Smith (1977) 430 US 817.) However, Plaintiff has not articulated any specific practice which interposes a barrier to his right to access the Court, beyond the conclusory assertion—contrary to statute—that he must be physically present in Court for this civil action. Plaintiff has not offered a sound legal nor factual basis for the relief sought.

Plaintiff remains at liberty to attend hearings in this matter through the use of telephonic or electronic means via the Court’s remote appearance system, LACourtConnect. This resource is available through the Court’s website at https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Removal and Transportation is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 27, 2025                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.