Three straight days now with no published opinions from the Ninth Circuit. But, again, the California Court of Appeal takes up the slack. Including this opinion, which is definitely worth a read. Not because it establishes any critical precedent. But rather because it's an interesting set of facts. As well as gives one a keen sense of the displeasure that courts sometimes take towards pro se litigation. Particularly when filed by prisoners.
You don't usually have a prisoner who (1) seems fairly diligent, (2) confronts a seemingly hostile and overly penurious judge, and (3) actually has a potentially meritorious case. Sure, you'll get one of these, and perhaps even two of them, on occasion. But all three? Rare. But, here, I think Justice Jenkins was surprised -- as I was -- to find the trifecta.
So take a gander at it. It reaches the right result. And, for what it's worth, doesn't make Judge Beeman (up in Solana County), look especially great.
P.S. - I welcomed Justice Needham for his first mention in the California Appellate Report yesterday, and today similarly welcome Justice Jenkins (who, as you may know, come over earlier this year from the federal bench). Enjoy.