Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV28113, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28113    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff William Jackson filed this action against Defendants Custody Assistant Alvarez, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Men’s Central Jail, and Robert Luna in His Capacity of Sheriff of Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff (who is currently incarcerated in state prison) filed a Motion for Removal and Transportation of Inmate for Court Appearance.  Plaintiff seeks an order compelling his removal and transport to the courthouse for scheduled hearings and trial in this case.

First, there is no proof of service on Defendants.  The motion is denied for lack of proper notice.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.)

Second, Plaintiff has not shown his entitlement to the relief sought, and the motion is also denied on the merits.

Plaintiff argues that he has a statutory right to appear and participate when his substantial rights are at issue.  Plaintiff’s cited authority requires the Court to order notice of any court proceeding that seeks to terminate the parental rights of a prisoner  (Pen. Code, § 2625, subd. (b).)  It does not compel Plaintiff’s physical presence in this civil action for damages.

Plaintiff also argues that he has a constitutional right to access the court.  That is true.  (See, e.g., Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 792 (Wantuch) [“A prisoner may not be deprived, by his or her inmate status, of meaningful access to the civil courts if the prisoner is both indigent and a party to a bona fide civil action threatening his or her personal or property interests.”]; Bounds v. Smith (1977) 430 U.S. 817, 821 (Bounds) [“prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts”].)

Remedies to secure access to the court may include transfer of the prisoner to court.  (Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 792.)  But “[i]n determining the appropriate remedy to secure access, the trial court should consider the nature of the action, the potential effect on the prisoner’s property, the necessity for the prisoner’s presence, the prisoner’s role in the action, the prisoner’s literacy, intelligence and competence to represent himself or herself, the stage of the proceedings, the access of the prisoner to a law library and legal materials, the length of the sentence, the feasibility of transferring the prisoner to court and the cost and inconvenience to the prison and judicial systems.”  (Id. at p. 793.)  “A prisoner does not have the right to any particular remedy,” and ordinarily, a prisoner cannot compel his own appearance in court for a civil action.  (Id. at pp. 793-794.)

Plaintiff’s cited authority does not support a transport order at this time.

“[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”  (Bounds, supra, 430 U.S. at p. 828.)  Plaintiff’s rights do not include mandatory transport from his jail or prison to the courthouse for routine hearings in this civil case.

A criminal defendant must be personally present for certain stages of a criminal prosecution, but he may appear through counsel on appeal, whether in custody or not.   (People v. Puluc-Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 899.)  Plaintiff is not a criminal defendant in this case.

Hines v. Enomoto (9th Cir. 1981) 658 F.2d 667, 670-671 involved a habeas petition that raised denial of the right to exercise all of the peremptory challenges to which he was entitled; ineffective assistance of counsel; subornation of perjury; sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent; refusal to provide a free preliminary hearing transcript on his state appeal; violation of the right to self-representation on appeal; and dismissal of a federal habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing.  The Ninth Circuit did not rule on anything relevant to this case.

The habeas petition in In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137 also did not involve anything relevant to this case.  Instead, the petition alleged that the petitioners were “being illegally restrained of their liberty because the order they are charged with disobeying is void and unenforceable in that it constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights.”  (Id. at p. 140.)  There was no ruling on anything relevant to this case.

Denial of transport is not unconstitutional retaliation and will not obstruct Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this civil case.  (See Motion at p. 2.)  At this early stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff can continue to litigate his case through written motions and discovery.  It is not feasible or cost-efficient to transport Plaintiff nearly 150 miles from his current location at Wasco State Prison to the courthouse for routine, early-stage hearings.

After considering the relevant factors, the Court concludes that a transport order for all proceedings is not an appropriate remedy to secure Plaintiff’s access to the courts.  (See Wantuch, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 793.)

The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to a renewed motion if there are changed circumstances.

Clerk to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2025