Barth v. Wiksell & Steinfeld CA2/6

Filed 9/12/22 Barth v. Wiksell & Steinfeld CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SHAWN DAMON BARTH 2d Crim. No. B316355 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00556176-CU-MC-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

WIKSELL & STEINFELD, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Shawn Damon Barth, an incarcerated litigant appearing in propria persona, appeals the trial court’s orders declaring him a vexatious litigant (Code Civ. Proc., § 391-391.8) and dismissing his third complaint against his former attorneys, respondents Wiksell & Steinfeld (DBA Conflict Defense Associates), Willard P. Wiksell, Joel B. Steinfeld, and David L. McDuffie. Appellant contends the orders were issued in violation of his due process rights and are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2011, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. Appellant, who is currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, was at times represented in the criminal proceedings by respondents as appointed conflict counsel. In October 2018, appellant filed an in propria persona “complaint for possession of personal property and damages (claim and delivery)” against Steinfeld in Ventura County Superior Court seeking $25,000,000 in damages for the alleged failure to provide him with his client file after he was sentenced. (Barth v. Steinfeld (Super. Ct. Ventura County, 2018, No. 56- 2018-00519263-CU-MC-VTA).)1 In September 2019, the trial

1 As an exhibit to his complaint, appellant attached a copy of a January 17, 2018 letter he sent to McDuffie stating that “given the years that have elapsed since the conclusion of your representation, I request that all papers and property [related to the case] be delivered to me within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter.” Appellant added that if he did not receive the materials by February 7, 2018, he would “have no choice but to file a petition for writ of mandate to compel you to do so.” Appellant also attached a February 22, 2018 letter he received from McDuffie stating among other things: “I thought we dealt with this previously. As I have indicated, and continue to indicate, I do not have any property of yours in my possession. To be honest with you, I do not know what property of yours I would have had in my possession. You were provided copies of all discovery during the pendency of your case. At the end of your case, I turned over to Conflict Defense Associates all discovery for them to hold. No ‘property,’ other that the aforementioned discovery that was handed to CDA. And as I mentioned, whatever I had I gave to them.”