Stephen Shapiro, et al. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.

I. Due process principles are designed to ensure a party is afforded his or her right to be heard during adversarial proceedings: “As the rubric itself implies, “procedural due process” is simply “a guarantee of fair procedure. Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., 203 Cal^App.4th 212, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 391, 162 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 61226, 18 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1368 (Cal. Ct, Add. 2012) The general rule for self-represented litigants in California is only that their pleadings are to be liberally construed. Now that there are more and more self-represented litigants in this country, it does not make sense to have such wide ranging “rules” in the courts on how to treat these litigants. Q. Do self-represented litigants receive their constitutional right of procedural due process? II. As our colleagues noted in Hoversten v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 636, 640 [88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197]: “Prison walls are a powerful restraint on a litigant wishing to appear in a civil proceeding. ” Given this, all courts have an obligation to ensure those walls do not stand in the way of affording litigants with bona fide claims the opportunity to be heard. Apollo v. Gvaami, 167 Cal.ADD.4th 1468, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127 (Cal. Ct, Add, 2008) While many court rulings emphasize access to courts for incarcerated persons, these rulings primarily address civil rights while incarcerated, and the right to a fair trial. There is also a divide between the circuit courts regarding where or when the access to court ends. These rulings do not necessarily apply to the self-represented civil plaintiff in a civil appeal. Q. Does the Fourteenth Amendment's right of access to the courts for incarcerated litigants apply to all litigants at all stages of litigation?