From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. S.C.

California Supreme Court (Minute Order)
Jul 8, 2020
No. S261669 (Cal. Jul. 8, 2020)

Opinion

S261669

07-08-2020

HAMILTON (PAUL) v. S.C. (CABRAL)


F080912 Fifth Appellate District

The petition for review is denied as premature, in view of the fact that the Fresno County Superior Court has not yet set the procedures for the conduct of trial in this case, including the presentation of evidence and argument. The denial is without prejudice to a renewed pretrial challenge raising the question whether the procedures set by the Superior Court, once those procedures have been set, are adequate to secure meaningful access to the courts. (See Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 792-793 [listing potential remedies to secure access for an indigent incarcerated individual seeking either to prosecute or to defend a civil action and describing factors to consider in determining the appropriate remedy]; see also Yarbrough v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 197, 200-201, 207 [factors to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel for incarcerated indigent civil defendants]; Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 923-924, 927 [same].)


Summaries of

Hamilton v. S.C.

California Supreme Court (Minute Order)
Jul 8, 2020
No. S261669 (Cal. Jul. 8, 2020)
Case details for

Hamilton v. S.C.

Case Details

Full title:HAMILTON (PAUL) v. S.C. (CABRAL)

Court:California Supreme Court (Minute Order)

Date published: Jul 8, 2020

Citations

No. S261669 (Cal. Jul. 8, 2020)