Jameson v. Desta
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Jameson (indigent, in pro per) sued Dr. Desta for medical malpractice; after multiple remands the case proceeded to jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.
- Jameson had an initial fee waiver under Gov. Code § 68631; § 68086(b) waives court reporter attendance fees for fee-waiver recipients.
- San Diego Superior Court policy eliminated routine official court reporters for most civil trials, requiring parties to hire private reporters and stating parties (including fee-waiver recipients) are responsible for related costs.
- At trial no official or private court reporter attended; after opening statements the court granted defendant’s nonsuit and entered judgment for defendant.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding Jameson’s challenges uncognizable because no reporter’s transcript existed; Supreme Court granted review to assess validity of the superior court policy as applied to fee‑waiver litigants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a local policy that withholds official court reporters in civil trials, without exception for fee‑waiver litigants, violates in forma pauperis principles and § 68630 public‑policy | Jameson: policy denies meaningful access to trial and appeal because § 68086(b) entitles fee‑waiver recipients to waived reporter fees and judicial precedent forbids imposing privately funded alternatives that indigents cannot afford | Desta/San Diego: statute/rules allow courts to limit availability; rule 2.956 and § 68086(d) permit parties to hire pro tempore reporters; policy is a valid budgetary exercise | Court: Policy invalid as applied to fee‑waiver litigants. When court discontinues official reporters but allows privately retained reporters for paying parties, it must provide an exception ensuring fee‑waiver litigants access to an official verbatim record (normally an official reporter) upon request |
| Whether rule 3.55(7) (2015) or its advisory comment require or permit denial of reporter services to fee‑waiver litigants | Jameson: rule should not be read to allow withholding official reporters from indigent litigants | Defendant: amended rule and comment show no mandate to provide reporters in all cases; local policy consistent with rules | Court: Rule 3.55(7) and its comment do not resolve the issue; they merely clarify waiver of fees if the court provides a reporter and do not override in forma pauperis principles |
| Whether failure to provide an official reporter was harmless because Jameson could not afford a transcript | Defendant: even with a reporter Jameson lacked means to obtain transcript; some indigents are not entitled to free transcripts | Jameson: absence of any reporter precluded obtaining transcript, using reimbursement funds, pro bono counsel advancing costs, or preparing an adequate settled statement | Court: Error not harmless. Reporter’s presence is necessary to enable meaningful appellate review; alternatives were unavailable without reporter notes |
| Remedy and remand scope | Jameson: vacate nonsuit and remand for trial with official reporter available to him | Defendant: maintain judgment; argue alternative grounds (e.g., CCP § 583.310) stand | Court: Reversed as to nonsuit-based judgment and remanded to Court of Appeal to address the alternative five‑year dismissal ground under CCP § 583.310 |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 289 (Cal. 1917) (recognizes courts’ inherent power to permit in forma pauperis litigants to proceed without fees and protects equal access to rights available to paying litigants)
- Isrin v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 153 (Cal. 1965) (in forma pauperis protections apply even when litigant has counsel on a contingency basis)
- Ferguson v. Keays, 4 Cal.3d 649 (Cal. 1971) (indigent civil litigants entitled to appellate access without prepayment of fees)
- Payne v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 908 (Cal. 1976) (meaningful access to judicial process for indigent defendants may include appointment of counsel)
- Solorzano v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (trial court may not appoint a privately compensated referee in a manner that makes litigation unaffordable for an in forma pauperis party)
- Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, 219 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (arbitration or private forums cannot be enforced in a way that effectively denies in forma pauperis litigants access to adjudication)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (appellate presumption that trial court rulings are correct; appellant bears burden to provide adequate record)