In Re Dormio

On jail inmate Raymond Dormio’s superior court pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus he was granted some, and denied other, of the substantive relief sought by him. His an ciliary “motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 1021.5 of the California Civil Code of Proceedure [sic] and Title 42 [U.S.C.A.] section 1988 [of] the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976” was denied. He appeals from that portion of the superior court’s order denying his motion for attorney fees.

The procedural posture of the cause is uncertain. One may not ordinarily appeal from an adverse decision on habeas corpus; the same relief may be obtained by again filing a habeas corpus application in a higher court. (In re Richard M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 783, 789 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 537 P.2d 363 ]; In re Bruegger (1928) 204 Cal. 169, 170 [ 267 P. 101 ].) Under the rule of liberal construction of the right of review (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 336, pp. 4313-4315), we treat the appeal also as a renewed habeas corpus petition in this court.

The facts are uncontroverted.

While Dormio was an inmate of the Santa Clara County jail he was representing himself in civil…