I.M. v. C.F. CA3

Filed 7/1/22 I.M. v. C.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

I.M., C091726

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DV00421)

v.

C.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant C.F. purports to appeal two trial court orders in this case. In the first, the court granted respondent I.M.’s request for a domestic violence restraining order against appellant in March 2020. In the second, the court allegedly denied appellant’s own request for a restraining order against I.M. in January 2020, though nothing evidencing this order exists in the record. Representing himself on appeal, appellant contends the trial court proceedings for both these matters were flawed. We shall affirm. DISCUSSION Starting with the alleged January 2020 order, appellant cites nothing in the record, in fact, he hasn’t supplied any record concerning this order. As best we can tell based on

1

the parties’ briefing, the trial court issued this order in a distinct case that was never appealed and is thus not properly before us.1 (See Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 670 [“the timely filing of an appropriate notice of appeal or its legal equivalent is an absolute prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction”].) Thus, we do not address it. Turning to the March 2020 order, the only order he appears to have appealed, appellant argues that he had physical evidence to present to the court at the hearing on the restraining order, yet the court refused to look at it. In a two-sentence argument with no citations to the record, he states: “The evidence currently and that was supposed to had been reviewed back in January & [M]arch 202[0] will refute and raise concerns why wasn’t it looked at and accepted. I was denied any chance to submit any evidence.” Appellant is proceeding in pro. per. His pleadings and papers should thus be liberally construed in order to assure he receives a hearing on the merits. (See People v. Reyes (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 769, 770; People v. Mitchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 312, 315.) A party proceeding in pro. per., however, is entitled “to no greater privilege or advantage than that given to one represented by counsel.” (Deauville v. Hall (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 535, 547.) “[I]in electing to represent himself ‘he assumes for all purposes connected with his case, and must be prepared to be treated as having, the qualifications and responsibilities concomitant with the role he has undertaken; he is not entitled either to privileges and indulgences not accorded attorneys or to privileges and indulgences not accorded defendants who are represented by counsel.’ ” (Ibid.) Thus, although the court will liberally construe a petitioner’s pleadings and papers, it cannot excuse a failure of pleading or argument.