Wright v. Huber
Filed 3/6/06 Wright v. Huber CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| ERIC LAWRENCE WRIGHT, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN FRANCIS HUBER, JR., Individually and as Deputy Sheriff, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C049249
(Super. Ct. No. CV024172)
|
Because prison inmates retain the fundamental right of meaningful access to the courts, the trial court erred by ignoring inmate Eric Wright's request for a continuance to enable him to file an opposition to defendants' motion to strike and demurrer to his civil complaint. We reverse the judgment of dismissal.
FACTS
On November 5, 2004, defendants, including San Joaquin County Sheriff Baxter Dunn, Captain John Huber, Jr., Sergeant Antonio Cruz, and the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department, filed a demurrer to Wright's first amended complaint for damages arising from their investigation of the underlying criminal charges filed against Wright. Wright, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison, received a copy of defendants' moving papers on November 15.
On November 30, Wright wrote a letter to counsel for the various defendants, requesting a stipulation for a continuance of the December 10 hearing on the demurrer. He explained he was unable to prepare a timely opposition to the demurrer because the cases defendants' counsel cited were unavailable in the prison library and the library had been closed for an extended period over the holidays. He further explained his inability to communicate with the law and motion department and stated the court had returned a motion he attempted to file that called these obstacles to the court's attention. He informed defendants he would attempt to file a request for a continuance before the hearing date.
On December 7, Wright filed an ex parte motion to continue the December 10 hearing. He again explained that he had not received the demurrer until November 15; the cases cited by defendants, as well as Witkin, were not available in the prison library and had to be ordered; the library's hours had been curtailed; and he had no access to on-line legal services. He pointed out that defendants would not be prejudiced by a continuance as the pleadings had just been filed and neither party had commenced discovery. He argued there was no feasible way for him to complete an opposition before the hearing.
According to Wright, the court issued a tentative ruling on December 9 granting defendants' motion to strike and sustaining their demurrer. Wright attempted to call the law and motion department to obtain the tentative ruling as required under the local court rules, but the court would not accept a collect call from the prison. As an inmate, Wright does not have access to the ruling on the Internet.[1]
There is nothing in the record to indicate the court ruled on Wright's request for a continuance. He did not appear at the hearing. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and granted the motion to strike, and thereafter entered a judgment of dismissal. Wright appeals.
DISCUSSION
The United States and California Supreme Courts have long recognized a constitutional right of access to the courts for all persons, including prisoners. (Procunier v. Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 419 [40 L.Ed.2d 224, 243]; Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 922-923 (Payne).) Although prisoners must forfeit significant rights and privileges as a necessary corollary of prison life, they â€
