City of Sacramento v. Superior Court

In Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 386 ] (hg. den.), the court held that indigency does not entitle a party in a civil action to a transcript prepared at public expense to assist in the *717 appeal of an adverse decision. That principle was followed in Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court (Price) (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 627 [ 133 Cal.Rptr. 825 ] (hg. den.) where the court, faced with a factual context identical to the instant proceeding, held that a court reviewing an administrative decision “is without power to order that an indigent person seeking judicial review of the administrative proceeding involving an economic interest be supplied with a transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the agency.” (P. 629.)

In Department of Consumer Affairs v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 97 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 120 ], the court followed the holding in Civil Service Commission, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d 627 , and reversed a trial court order directing “‘the Administrative Hearings Recorder and the Court Recorder prepare transcripts of hearings conducted on May 25 and 26 in the above matter. .. .’” (P. 99.) The court, relying on Civil Service Commission,…

I concur with the majority that real party in interest petitioner below (hereafter Lambert) is not entitled, on the present record, to a free transcript of his administrative pension proceedings. I do not agree that one seeking review of administrative proceedings is never entitled to such transcript unless the costs of preparation are paid in advance of receipt of the transcript.

I also disagree that Lambert, as stated by the majority, “has been afforded the essentials of due process in regard to notice, opportunity to *721 be heard, and a fair hearing.” These are issues going to the merits of judicial review of the administrative proceedings and are not before us on this petition for “prohibition and mandate.” The sole issue before this court in this proceeding is whether Lambert is entitled to a transcript of the administrative proceedings, either at no cost or without prepayment of the cost of preparation.

In the trial court 1 and in briefing before this court, Lambert asserted he was entitled to a free transcript at the expense of the public agencies because of his indigency and his need to file such a transcript to withstand any further demurrer by the public agencies. 2…

Melvyn J. Coben for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

In Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal. App.3d 104 [ 116 Cal. Rptr. 386 ] (hg. den.), the court held that indigency does not entitle a party in a civil action to a transcript prepared at public expense to assist in the appeal of an adverse decision. That principle was followed in Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court ( Price ) (1976) 63 Cal. App.3d 627 [ 133 Cal. Rptr. 825 ] (hg. den.) where the court, faced with a factual context identical to the instant proceeding, held that a court reviewing an administrative decision "is without power to order that an indigent person seeking judicial review of the administrative proceeding involving an economic interest be supplied with a transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the agency." (P. 629.)

In Department of Consumer Affairs v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal. App.3d 97 [ 139 Cal. Rptr. 120 ], the court followed the holding in Civil Service Commission, supra, 63 Cal. App.3d 627 , and reversed a trial court order directing "`the Administrative Hearings Recorder and the Court Recorder prepare transcripts of hearings conducted on May 25 and 26 in the above matter....'"…