Mulvihill v. McDavid CA4/1

Filed 1/18/22 Mulvihill v. McDavid CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MULVIHILL, D077204

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017-00000618- CU-PO-NC) WELDON MCDAVID,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Weldon McDavid, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of William C. Halsey, William C. Halsey and William Lionel Halsey for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Self-represented defendant Weldon McDavid is currently incarcerated in state prison after he was convicted of conspiring and attempting to murder plaintiff Gregory Mulvihill. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. While the criminal proceedings were pending, Mulvihill brought this civil action against McDavid seeking damages for assault and battery. Following McDavid’s criminal conviction, and based on his various failures to defend against Mulvihill’s civil lawsuit, the superior court struck his answer and ultimately entered a default judgment, from which McDavid now appeals. It is self-evident that an incarcerated self-represented civil litigant faces significant obstacles in attempting to defend against a lawsuit. Many of these are a function of self-represented status and the lack of financial resources. But these impediments are only compounded by the added difficulties an incarcerated individual faces in understanding the court proceedings and responding appropriately. In two thoughtfully composed handwritten briefs, McDavid catalogs these obstacles as he strenuously complains about how the legal system has treated him. While we can appreciate McDavid’s frustration with what may appear to be arcane procedural rules and confusing legal terminology, in the end this appeal is not so much about how and when McDavid can present his defense to a civil claim, but whether or to what extent he has a defense at all. Even if we were to reverse the judgment and vacate the default, and we do not mean to suggest that is the appropriate result, the “defense” McDavid wants to present—that his “conviction was obtained by false evidence”—is foreclosed by the final judgment in his criminal case, entered in a proceeding in which he was fully represented by legal counsel. Unless and until the criminal conviction is successfully challenged, highly unlikely now that McDavid has