Simpson v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court Jul 20, 2001 No. BS069127Published

Before: McKay

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial judge may not personally file a response to a writ petition as a respondent, and that a trial court must grant an in forma pauperis application if the applicant receives SSI benefits or, if there is a conflict, must hold a hearing as required by California Rules of Court, rule 985.

Issues

Whether a trial judge may personally file a response to a writ petition challenging their own order.
Whether a trial court may deny an in forma pauperis application without a hearing when the applicant receives SSI benefits.

Disposition. No writ issued; response stricken.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the role of the respondent court is that of a neutral party.”

“the court was required to promptly give the applicant notice of a hearing.”

111 Cal.Rptr.2d 819 (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 Artice SIMPSON, Petitioner,

The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent.

No. BS069127. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

July 20, 2001. [820] Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and A. Christian Abasto, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

McKAY, J.

Due to the procedural nature of this petition, this court finds the petition meritorious, but no writ of mandate need be issued. The response filed in this case is ordered stricken.

Petitioner Artice Simpson (hereinafter petitioner) filed a petition for writ of mandate directing respondent, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, to vacate its order denying petitioner's application for waiver of court fees and costs, made pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 985. By order dated May 11, 2001, the parties were notified that this court may elect to issue the peremptory writ in the first instance in this matter and invited response thereto by real party in interest pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-183, 203 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 893.

Thereafter, two unusual events occurred. First, respondent court on its own ordered petitioner be given a refund of her first appearance fee, and respondent court [821] delivered a copy of said order to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Thereafter, on May 29, 2001, the trial court judge, Judge Brett C. Klein, filed his own response to the petition in the appellate division. As will be explained, post, the response is ordered stricken.

The Petition Shall Be Considered Despite its Mootness

Simpson v. Superior Court

AI Brief

JUDGMENT

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

III

DISPOSITION

AI Brief