Voit v. Superior Court

Opinion

PREMO, J. Petitioner Edward Voit is being sued in respondent Santa Clara County Superior Court by real parties in interest Julie Montano, minor Jane Doe, and minor John Doe. Voit sent to respondent court for filing an “Exparte Motion for Request for the Appointment of Counsel for Defendant” (sic) asking the court to appoint counsel to represent him in the civil case because he is incarcerated and indigent. The court clerk’s office rejected the filing on the ground that Voit had not enclosed a filing fee and returned the document to Voit with a fee waiver form.

[1287]It appears that Voit refiled with the completed waiver form, as he received from the clerk’s office a second civil filing rejection letter that stated in relevant part, “Hearing date must be reserved prior to filing motions. However, the civil court does not appoint counsel.”

Voit sent a letter asking the clerk’s office to reserve a date to hear his motion. The clerk’s office returned Voit’s letter with a civil filing rejection letter that read in relevant part, “The Court does not set a hearing for Request for the Appointment of Counsel on a Civil matter. You need to find a Counsel on your own to represent you.” (Sic.)

Voit sent another letter to the clerk’s office in which he wrote in part, “There is a [precedent] set that inmates suffering from mental disabilities can be assigned counsel by the court in a civil matter. This motion must be filed so that the judge can rule on that [precedent]’s impact in this case.” The clerk’s office sent Voit yet another civil filing rejection letter, stating, in relevant part, “The court does not assigned counsels for civil matters; please cite or quote the precedent for further consideration.” (Sic.)

After receiving this last civil filing rejection letter, Voit applied to this court for a writ of mandate directing respondent court to both file his motion and grant his request for appointment of counsel. We issued a Palma notice (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180 [203 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 893]) to advise the parties that we were considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance compelling respondent court to file Voit’s motion, though we expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of that motion. We also stayed proceedings in the case against Voit and invited the parties to submit a brief in opposition to the petition and a reply, but no briefs were filed.