California Legal Brief

The Rule of J.S. v. D.A. is that indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions that threaten their interests have a right to meaningful access to the courts to be heard in their defense, and trial courts must address and rule on such requests before proceeding without the inmate, under circumstances where an incarcerated defendant requests court assistance to participate in proceedings and the court has notice of the incarceration.

Appeal from judgment after evidentiary hearing in Superior Court, San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was D.A. — the incarcerated former fiancé against whom a domestic violence restraining order was sought.

Plaintiff Respondent was J.S. — the domestic violence victim seeking a five-year restraining order against her former fiancé.

The suit sounded in domestic violence restraining order proceedings under the Family Code.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that J.S. alleged D.A. had been physically abusive since 2021, breaking her nose and giving her black eyes, and while incarcerated, he repeatedly contacted her from prison in February 2025 with threatening statements including "I'm not done with you," "If I cannot be with you, then you cannot be with anyone else," and threats to look for her when released.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted a five-year DVRO after conducting an evidentiary hearing without appellant present, ruling without addressing appellant's written request for the court to order CDCR to prepare him to appear telephonically at the hearing.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to address an indigent inmate's request for meaningful access to the courts before conducting a DVRO hearing without him.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and rule on appellant's request for telephonic appearance before holding the evidentiary hearing without him, as indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions that threaten their interests have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant is not incarcerated, when no request for court assistance to participate is made, when the court lacks notice of the defendant's incarceration status, or when the civil action is not bona fide or does not threaten the inmate's interests.

The case leaves open what specific remedy the trial court should select from the various options available to ensure meaningful access (transportation, telephonic appearance, appointment of counsel, etc.), and whether appellant is currently indigent or still incarcerated at the time of remand proceedings.