Smith v. Ogbuehi
Annotate this Case
The California Constitution and Penal Code section 2601, subdivision (d) provide indigent prisoners with the right of meaningful access to the courts to prosecute civil actions. The Court of Appeal held that one of the discretionary measures available to protect the right of access to the courts is the appointment of counsel, and thus the trial court had the discretionary authority to appoint counsel. The court held that the trial court's denial of the motion to appoint counsel was not based on an informed exercise of its discretion, and the appropriate remedy was to remand the matter to the trial court for an exercise of its discretionary authority within the three-step inquiry established in published appellate decisions: Apollo v. Gyaami (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1485–1487, and Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 792.
The court published a portion of this decision because it resolved issues not reached in those appellate decisions. The court held that the discretionary appointment of an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is among the measures available to trial courts to ensure indigent prisoner litigants are afforded meaningful access to the courts, and trial courts are responsible for recognizing their discretionary authority to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants who request the appointment of counsel. Furthermore, an indigent civil litigant may argue on appeal that the right of meaningful access to the courts provides a basis for appointing counsel despite not raising that specific argument in the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.