Voit v. Superior Court
201 Cal. App. 4th 1285
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Voit, incarcerated and indigent, seeks appointment of counsel in a civil suit filed by Montano and two minors in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
- Voit filed an Ex parte Motion for Request for the Appointment of Counsel; clerk rejected due to missing filing fee, then later after waiver, again rejected.
- Clerk's letters stated the hearing date must be reserved or that the court does not appoint counsel in civil matters and urged Voit to find counsel.
- Voit argued there is a precedent that indigent inmates can be appointed counsel in civil matters; clerk pressed for citation of precedent.
- Voit petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the clerk to file the motion and to proceed on the merits; Palma notice issued, stays issued, no briefs filed.
- Court granted a peremptory writ directing the respondent court to file Voit’s motion and rule on merits; hold that clerk’s actions violated Voit’s access to courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clerk’s filing rejection violated access to courts? | Voit asserts clerk unlawfully refused to file, hindering access to remedies. | Voit is not argued here; clerk’s actions are administrative. | Yes; clerk's refusals violated Voit's access to courts. |
| Clerk had authority to demand precedent citation before filing? | Voit could rely on applicable precedent; clerk blocked filing. | Clerk properly required relevant precedent for consideration. | No; clerk lacks authority to condition filing on citing precedent. |
| Court should appoint counsel for indigent inmate in civil matter? | Precedent authorizes appointment of counsel for indigent inmates in civil suits (Payne). | No such automatic appointment in civil matters. | Court may appoint counsel; remedy requires filing and consideration on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 908 (Cal. 1976) (recognizes possible appointment of counsel for indigent inmates in civil matters)
- Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game, 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (clerk has ministerial duty to file compliant documents and notify defects)
- Rojas v. Cutsforth, 67 Cal.App.4th 774 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (clerks should not be adversaries and must avoid blocking access to courts)
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984) (Palma notice for consideration of writs)