Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles [unpublished], review granted August 16, 2006, S143929

The California Supreme Court has appointed Horvitz & Levy as counsel for a previously unrepresented litigant in a matter that will decide an important legal issue concerning equality of access to the appellate courts in civil cases. Horvitz & Levy is undertaking the representation pro bono. (Read the opening brief on the merits.)

Plaintiff Peter Silverbrand is a state prison inmate who sued the County of Los Angeles and others for alleged medical malpractice at a County hospital. When his lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiff, representing himself, prepared a notice of appeal and delivered it to prison authorities for mailing to the superior court clerk. He delivered the notice before the time to appeal expired, but the notice was not filed until after the deadline.

The case before the Supreme Court will decide the timeliness of plaintiff’s appeal. In criminal cases, the rule is settled that “a prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed to have been filed in the office of the appropriate county clerk on the date, within the filing period prescribed by [the rules of court], on which it was delivered to the prison authorities.” (In re Jordan (1992) 4 Cal.4th 116, 130.) The Court of Appeal held the prison-delivery rule does not apply in civil cases and dismissed plaintiff's appeal, but the Supreme Court granted review to determine the following issue: "Does the 'prison delivery' rule apply to the filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case, and thus make timely a notice of appeal deposited in the prison legal mail system before the expiration of the jurisdictional deadline but not received by the trial court until after that deadline has passed?"

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map