Di Suvero v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Sep 27, 1977 No. Civ. 50713Published

Before: Ford

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A taxpayer's action under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a cannot be used to challenge judicial policies or enjoin judicial functions, as criminal defendants directly affected by such policies have adequate, immediate recourse within the judicial system.

Issues

Whether a taxpayer's action may be employed to enjoin judicial functions or actions.
Whether a taxpayer's action is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a court policy regarding self-representation when affected parties have direct access to judicial remedies.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Resort to a taxpayer’s action is unnecessary in a matter such as this where a ready hearing is available to a person directly affected by the court policy which plaintiff seeks to challenge in the present case.”

“Action against the county cannot constitutionally be used as a means of doing indirectly that which cannot be done directly and thus undermining the independence of the judiciary.”

Opinion

FORD, P. J.

Plaintiff brought a taxpayer’s action against Robert E. Wenke, as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

[720]

Jack E. Goertzen, as Supervising Judge of the Criminal Courts of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from expending public funds in the implementation of a policy of the court that is embodied in a petition to proceed in' propria persona which a defendant in a criminal case is requested to complete if he desires to represent himself. Defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff has appealed from the ensuing order of dismissal.

In the complaint it is alleged that “pursuant to uniform procedures and uniform policy relative to criminal matters heard within the Superior Courts of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, judges presiding in said courts request that criminal defendants who wish to exercise their constitutional right to self-representation sign and agree to the terms of a prepared ‘Petition to Proceed In Propria Persona’ as a condition precedent to that exercise.” It is further alleged: “. .. judges presiding in said Courts do not inform said criminal defendants that they are not required to sign and agree to the terms of the Petition in order to exercise their constitutional right to self-representation. As a result, said criminal defendants do in fact reasonably believe that they must sign and agree to the terms of the Petition in order to represent themselves.”

The illegality of the judicial action is alleged to be that the provisions of the petition “infringe, deny, and deter the exercise of criminal defendants’ constitutional and statutory rights” in designated respects.

With relation to the county it is alleged: “Defendants have spent and will spend, unless enjoined by this Court, public funds of the County of Los Angeles in the enforcement and execution of the said Petition.”

The primary question to be resolved is whether a taxpayer’s action may be employed to enjoin judicial functions or actions. Since no authority has been cited by counsel or found by this court in the course of its independent research which affords a ready answer, consideration must first be given to the nature of a taxpayer’s action. In speaking of section 526a of the Code of Civil Procedure,

Di Suvero v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

FORD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief