Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court

The case at bench falls in the field of substantive and procedural civil law involving personal economic interests as distinguished from the field of criminal law where personal liberty may be at stake. Its posture before the superior court is on the review or appeal level as distinguished from the fact finding or trial level.

The underlying fundamental issue, framed by the briefs, is whether or not the superior court in an administrative mandamus proceeding, such as described in the majority opinion, has the authority or is otherwise *633 empowered to order, at the request of an indigent litigant, a free transcript of the fact finding hearing at public expense.

The answer to the above fundamental issue turns on whether or not there is constitutional, statutory or common law authority vesting such power in the superior court. In their thorough briefs the agency (Commission) contends there is no such authority while Price argues the opposite view.

The majority opinion, in its body, elects to base its “reversal” on the very narrow ground that the reviewing “superior court did not order the administrative record [transcript] filed with it [the court]. Rather, it [the court]…

In Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 398 , 484 P.2d 70 ], our Supreme Court held that there is an inherent judicial power to waive filing fees on appeal upon a showing of the appellant’s indigency but expressly did not decide “the question whether indigents must be given funds by the county or some other source in order to pay transcript fees, publication costs, or other similar third-party charges.” ( 4 Cal.3d at p. 654 .) About three years after Ferguson , the Supreme Court denied hearing in Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 386 ], which holds that indigency does not entitle a party to a civil action to a transcript prepared at public expense to aid him in appealing an unfavorable judgment. ( 41 Cal.App.3d at p. 107 .) The matter at bench involves the application of the Leslie rule in the context of the right of añ’ihdigent person seeking judicial review of an administrative determination to a transcript of the administrative record at the expense of the agency where that transcript is required so that the reviewing court may exercise its independent judgment of the evidence as required by Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees…

Daniel M. Luevano, Rosalyn M. Chapman, John E. McDermott, Richard A. Paez, Stanley Di Irio and Georgia Franklin for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

THOMPSON, J.

In Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649 [ 94 Cal. Rptr. 398 , 484 P.2d 70 ], our Supreme Court held that there is an inherent judicial power to waive filing fees on appeal upon a showing of the appellant's indigency but expressly did not decide "the question whether indigents must be given funds by the county or some other source in order to pay transcript fees, publication costs, or other similar third-party charges." ( 4 Cal.3d at p. 654 .) About three years after Ferguson , the Supreme Court denied hearing in Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 104 [ 116 Cal. Rptr. 386 ], which holds that indigency does not entitle a party to a civil action to a transcript prepared at public expense to aid him in appealing an unfavorable judgment. ( 41 Cal. App.3d at p. 107 .) The matter at bench involves the application of the Leslie rule in the context of the right of an indigent person seeking judicial review of an administrative determination to a transcript of the administrative record at the expense of the agency where that…