DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the COMMONWEALTH COURT of PENNSYLVANIA Caine Pelzer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the COMMONWEALTH COURT of PENNSYLVANIA Caine Pelzer IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Caine Pelzer, : : Appellant : : v. : No. 50 C.D. 2012 : Property Officer Pry C01, Property : Submitted: March 8, 2013 Officer Jenkins C01, John Doe 1, : John Doe 2, John Doe 3 Security : Officer, John Doe 4 Security Sgt. : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: May 15, 2013 Caine Pelzer appeals, pro se, from the July 7, 2011 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County (trial court) that sua sponte dismissed with prejudice Pelzer’s: (1) Writ of Seizure (Writ); (2) Action in Replevin (Action); and (3) Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (Application), pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,1 Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), on the basis that Pelzer did not set forth a cause of action, 1 Rule 240(j)(1) permits a trial court, prior to ruling on an IFP request, to dismiss an action where the trial court is satisfied that the action is frivolous. Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1). Rule 240(j) recently has been subdivided to include special provisions for suits that are instituted via a writ of summons and directs the trial court not to act on the IFP petition until a complaint is filed, which must occur within ninety days of filing the IFP petition. Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(2). thereby making the matter frivolous. On appeal, Pelzer argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the Writ and Action because he has demonstrated a right to possession of certain property under Pennsylvania law and, therefore, has asserted a colorable cause of action for an action in replevin. Moreover, Pelzer asserts the trial court should have permitted him to proceed IFP because he has established his indigence. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s Order and remand for further proceedings. On or about July 5, 2011, Pelzer filed the Writ, Action and Application with the trial court. These documents named John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Property Officer Pry CO1, Property Officer Jenkins CO1, John Doe 3 Security Officer, and John Doe 4 Security Sgt. (collectively, Defendants), all of whom are employed at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) – Houtzdale, as defendants in their individual and official capacities. In the Action, Pelzer avers the following facts. 10. Plaintiff, Caine Pelzer had his property packed by SCI-Somerset on November 14, 2010 to be transferred to SCI-Houtzdale which property consisted of (9) [b]oxes of property. Each box specifically had an individual inventory sheet documenting what was stored in each box, each inventory sheet was signed by [Pelzer] and (2) corrections officers at SCI-Somerset documenting its contents and the facts of it being in working/operable condition before being shipped to SCI-Houtzdale. 11. [Officers] Pry and Jenkins received [Pelzer’s] property from the security department at SCI-Houtzdale on November 25, 2010, which consisted of 4 [b]oxes of property, (specifically) one (1) footlocker and three (3) brown boxes of [Pelzer’s] property (one damaged television which seems like the bottom was hammered out) and (8) eight inventory slips [were] missing. 12. [Officers] Pry and Jenkins inventoried [Pelzer’s] 4 boxes of property on November 25, 2010 and documented 1 damaged 2 television and 1 inventory slip was present which did not record all of [Pelzer’s] property. This was conducted in the restricted housing unit [(RHU)]. 13. On November 25th, 2010, [Pelzer] filed grievance #345383 documenting [Pelzer’s] lost lawsuits and caseload to case #12727- 2009 [L]uzerne Courthouse and Superior Court #1385 MDA 2010. As well as (nine) law books documented as 1) The Prisoners Guerilla Handbook, @ $49.95[;] #2) The Ceiling of America @ $22.95[;] #3) Represent Yourself In Court And Win @ $39.99[;] #4) The Criminal Law Handbook @ $39.99[;] #5) Lucifer – Ancient Law @ $20.00[;] #6) Justice Denied @ $19.00[;] #7) The Movement (Value Unknown); #8) Pa. Rules of Court – State (Price Unknown at this filing)[; and] #9) The Citebook @ $49.95. 14. On November 25, 2010, [Officers] [P]ry and [J]enkins confiscated [Pelzer’s] property and took it somewhere off the housing unit (allegedly to security) and wrote a misconduct on [Pelzer] because he refused to throw away any property due to the fact 5 boxes were missing. 15. On [D]ecember 9, 2010, John [D]oe 1, 2, 3 and 4 performed another inventory on [Pelzer’s] property with the same 4 boxes as the November 25, 2010 inventory. No previous inventory slips were found, but this time [Pelzer] was told to take (2) boxes of property in his (RHU) cell and that (2) boxes would be stored in property rooms located in the [RHU]. 16. After it was discovered the other property would not be located, grievance no. 346908 was filed and a [t]elevision of lesser value was placed somewhere in [Pelzer’s] storage area. All law books and legal documents listed herein have been kept from [Pelzer] as well as all inventory sheets documenting said lost property. 17. Defendants involved acknowledged the fact that [Pelzer] was received at SCI-Houtzdale with 9 boxes of property but has failed to protect [Pelzer’s] property knowing the record is clear showing such deprivation of property without due process of law. 3 (Action ¶¶ 10-17.) Based on these allegations, Pelzer asserts that Defendants’ actions have deprived him of the due process of law guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Specifically, Pelzer stated: This claim is for negligence of the state committed by its employees ([D]efendants, C/O 1 Pry, C/O 1 Jenkins, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and John Doe 4 at SCI-Houtzdale for the loss and destruction of [Pelzer’s] property while acting within the scope of his/her duties on November 25, 2010[,] or any date prior to [Pelzer’s] initial inventory done at SCI-Houtzdale where the destruction and loss of [his] property occurred. (Action ¶ 19.) Pelzer averred that the location of his missing property is unknown. (Action ¶ 21.) The Action sets the value of the damaged television at $245, of some of his missing books at $241.83, and states that the value of the missing books of “unknown” value would have to be determined by his family, who had purchased the books, and the value of the missing lawsuits and case load would have to be determined by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. (Action ¶ 20.) The Writ identified the property listed in paragraph 13 of the Action and requested that the Clearfield County Sheriff seize the listed property. (Writ.) Finally, in the Application, Pelzer avers, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the fees and costs of prosecuting this action, he is unable to obtain funds from others to pay for the litigation, and he has no job or other assets to assist in funding his litigation. (Application.) The trial court issued its Order on July 7, 2011, pursuant to Rule 240(j), dismissing the matter with prejudice based on the trial court’s conclusion that the 4 litigation was frivolous because Pelzer did not set forth a cause of action. Pelzer now appeals to this Court.2 On appeal, Pelzer argues that he has asserted a colorable claim for an action in replevin because he had property rights associated with the five missing boxes and the damaged television, of which Defendants negligently deprived him without the minimum level of procedural safeguards available under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. According to Pelzer, his Action included, inter alia, the value of the property to be returned and his asserted right to continued possession of the taken property and, therefore, he should be permitted to proceed in this litigation.3 Defendants present numerous arguments in support of the trial court’s dismissal of Pelzer’s litigation as frivolous pursuant to Rule 240(j). Initially, the Defendants assert that the claims against John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 Security Officer and John Doe 4 Security Sgt. (John Doe Defendants) as unknown 2 Our review of a trial court order dismissing an action pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j) is limited to determining whether an appellant’s constitutional rights have been violated and “whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797, 798 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). An abuse of discretion occurs where, “in reaching a conclusion, the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Appeal of Lynch Community Homes, Inc., 522 A.2d 716, 719 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). 3 Pelzer also complains that the lack of an opinion from the trial court prevented him from knowing why his litigation was dismissed. (Pelzer’s Br. at 6.) We agree that the lack of explanation regarding the trial court’s grounds for its sua sponte determination that Pelzer failed to set forth a cause of action and dismissal of this matter does create a challenge to understand the specific reason the Action was dismissed. 5 individuals are inherently frivolous under Pennsylvania’s fact-pleading requirements. Next, Defendants argue that Pelzer’s due process and negligence claims are frivolous because Pelzer fails to establish a property interest to which process is due where the Department of Corrections (Department) has authority to limit the amount of property an inmate may possess.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fairborn Municipal Court Small Claims Division 1148
    FAIRBORN MUNICIPAL COURT SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 1148 KAUFFMAN AVE FAIRBORN, OHIO 45324 937-754-3044 www.fairbornmunicipalcourt.us SMALL CLAIM’S INFORMATION PACKET NOTE: Please be sure to provide the appropriate copies: The court will keep the original and you will need a copy for each defendant and a copy for yourself. 1. PARTIES The individual or corporation who initiates an action is known as the PLAINTIFF. The individual or corporation against whom an action is brought is known as the DEFENDANT. Anyone may file a claim, however, a minor under the age of 18 must bring an action through his parent or legal guardian and a corporation must bring an action through an attorney at law, an officer, or a salaried employee. An officer or salaried employee of a corporation will not be allowed to engage in cross-examination, argument, or other acts of advocacy. Special care and attention should be given when filing against a business or other organization to determine whether or not it is INCORPORATED. If the business is incorporated you must name the exact corporate title of your defendant. One method of determining whether an organization is incorporated is by contacting the Secretary of State Corporations Section (1-877-767-6446 OR AT SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE AT www.sos.state.oh.us/) to see if your defendant is listed. If the business is not incorporated, you must determine the owner or owners name (s), then file the complaint against the owners doing business as the name of the business (example: John Doe dba John Doe’s Plumbing).
    [Show full text]
  • Sniadach, the Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B
    Boston College Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 3 Number 3 2-1-1973 Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B. McDonnell Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Julian B. McDonnell, Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism?, 14 B.C.L. Rev. 437 (1973), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol14/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SNIADACH, THE REPLEVIN CASES AND SELF-HELP REPOSSESSION-DUE PROCESS TOKENISM? JULIAN B. MCDONNELL* Last term, a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated the replevin statutes of Pennsylvania and Florida. In Fuentes v. Shevinl and Parham v. Cortese' (the Replevin Cases), the Court held these statutes unconstitutional insofar as they authorized repossession of collateral through state officials before the debtor was notified of the attempted repossession and accorded an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the creditor's claim. The Replevin Cases involved typical consumer purchases of household pods,' and accordingly raised new questions about the basic relationship between secured creditors and consumer debtors—a relationship upon which our consumer credit economy is based. Creditors have traditionally regarded the right to immediate repossession of collateral after determining the debtor to be in default as the essence of personal property security arrange- ments,' and their standard-form security agreements typically spell out this right.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions for Filing an Emergency Replevin Case
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN EMERGENCY REPLEVIN CASE The Replevin action is used for resolving civil disputes involving personal property valued up to$15,000.00 (excluding court costs, interest and/or attorney’s fees, if applicable). This process allows an individual to recover their property from another person who refuses to return the property to the owner. Before filing your complaint, you must know where the property is located. You should attempt to get the full proper name and address of the party/parties you want to sue. You will need to know the proper legal name for the business, as well as the proper owners and their addresses. If you wish to sue a corporation, you need to identify the name and address of a corporate representative who is available to accept service of legal papers. This information can be obtained from the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The website for the secretary of state is www.sunbiz.org. Once you are prepared to file your case, you should complete a Replevin complaint form, supported by invoices or other evidence of legal right to possession of the property in question. You will need to provide one (1) copy of each for the court, plus one (1) copy for each defendant. An “Affidavit in Support of Emergency Replevin” must also be filled out at the time you file the complaint. The urgent nature of the emergency replevin requires that a bond be filed. This is collected as “good faith” money to ensure that the property in question can be repaired, if damaged; or replaced, if destroyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 3 Spring 1973 Article 6 1973 Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought Richard M. Ashton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Richard M. Ashton, Due Process, Replevin, and Summary Remedies: What Sniadach Wrought, 22 Cath. U. L. Rev. 667 (1973). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol22/iss3/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19731 Death Penalty they are more the result of personal convictions than the impartial applica- tion of legal principles. The majority carefully constructed a bridge from the preceding cases to their present decision, but there is no escaping the fact that their decision represents a rather radical shift from previous considera- tions of capital punishment. Indeed, the strength of the majority opinions lies not in their case law, but in their statistics of infrequent and uneven use of the death penalty, statistics which the majority themselves admit are not 2 conclusive. 9 It is generally considered a judicial sin for judges to wander too boldly away from the realm of legal principles and into the field of social policy making. But when judges are called upon to apply such rules as "the evolv- ing standards of decency" their decisions are naturally vulnerable to such criticism. Regardless of its manner, the fact remains that the Furman de- cision was made.
    [Show full text]
  • Certification of Readiness for Arbitration
    : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff(s) : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : : NO. ARB. NO._______________ Defendant(s) : CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FOR ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS I/We request the Court Administrator to appoint arbitrators and fix the date and time of hearing and hereby certify that (1) the pleadings are closed; (2) all discovery and medical examinations have been completed; (3) all depositions for use at the hearing have been taken or are scheduled to be taken no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this certification; (4) it is understood that no discovery, medical examinations or depositions for use at the arbitration hearing can be taken thereafter, except by leave of court for good cause shown; (5) the parties have discussed submitting this matter to the Berks County Bar Association Civil Dispute Resolution Program or a comparable program and have either: Scheduled a mediation/arbitration; Been unsuccessful in resolving the case through mediation/arbitration; or, Rejected submission of the matter to a dispute resolution program after good faith discussions; and (6) the case is ready for arbitration. A. Presentation by Plaintiff(s) hours Automobile Negligence Automobile Negligence Signature of Plaintiff(s) Counsel Breach of Contract Breach of Contract Presentation by Defendant(s) hours Medical Malpractice Name of Plaintiff(s) Counsel Products Liability Replevin Actions TOTAL TIME REQUIRED: hours Slip and Fall Defamation Mailing Address Mechanic’s Liens
    [Show full text]
  • Small Claims Replevin – for Property
    SMALL CLAIMS REPLEVIN – FOR PROPERTY An action for replevin may be brought in small claims court when the value of the property does not exceed $8,000.00 and the following fees are paid. 1. $1000.00 or less - $130.00 Filing Fee which includes the Replevin fee 2. $1001.00 - $2500.00 - $175.00 Filing Fee + $85.00 Replevin fee 3. $2501.00-$8000.00 - $300.00 Filing Fee + $85.00 Replevin fee It is recommended that prior to filing suit, you contact the other party in an attempt to reach a solution to your dispute. If you are not sure that you have a valid legal claim against the other party, you may need to seek the advice of an attorney. TO FILE A CLAIM Contact the Clerk of the County Court where the: Property sought to be replevied is located Contract was signed Defendant resides Cause of action occurred Forms for filing a complaint in Citrus County are available from the Clerk of the Circuit Court at either the Inverness location or online at http://www.citrusclerk.org . Claims can be filed by or against an individual, business, or corporation. The exact legal name, complete address and phone number of the defendant is required. In the case of a business, this information may be obtained from the City or County Occupational License Department. A summons fee of $10.00 per person to process and $7.00 for the Clerk of the Court to issue is due at the time of filing for a total of $17.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts a Guide to Resources in the Law Library
    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2001-2021, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2021 Edition Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Section 1: Breach of Promise to Marry and Return of Engagement Ring and Courtship Gifts ............................................................................................................... 4 Table 1: No Fault Approach........................................................................... 20 Figure 1: Substituted Complaint .................................................................... 22 Figure 2: Amendment to first count of plaintiff’s complaint ............................... 25 See Also: Alienation of Affection Suits in Connecticut Replevin in Connecticut Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations, Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit [email protected] Breach of Promise to Marry – 1 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and currency of any resource cited in this research guide. View our other research guides at https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm This guide links to advance
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 37 Issue 4 Issue 4 - Symposium: The Winds of Change in Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning Article 5 Law 5-1984 Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society Douglas I. Brandon Melinda L. Cooper Jeremy H. Greshin Alvin L. Harris James M. Head, Jr. See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Douglas I. Brandon; Melinda L. Cooper; Jeremy H. Greshin; Alvin L. Harris; James M. Head, Jr.; Keith R. Jacques; and Lea Wiggins, Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society, 37 Vanderbilt Law Review 845 (1984) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol37/iss4/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society Authors Douglas I. Brandon; Melinda L. Cooper; Jeremy H. Greshin; Alvin L. Harris; James M. Head, Jr.; Keith R. Jacques; and Lea Wiggins This symposium is available in Vanderbilt Law Review: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol37/iss4/5 SPECIAL PROJECT Self-Help: Extrajudicial Rights, Privileges and Remedies in Contemporary American Society - I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 849 II. -.TORT ..... ..................................... 852 A. Introduction .............................. 852 B. PersonalInterests and Self-Help Privileges.. 854 1. Bodily Harm ........................... 854 2. Reputation ............................ 855 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Packet R4-15 Replevin Complaint Government Entity
    MICHELLE R. MILLER CLERK & COMPTROLLER ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SELF-SERVICE CENTER Department: Small Claims Packet Packet #R4-15: Replevins Complaint FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY/ WEAPON FROM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY The Self Service Center Packet ("Packet") you are purchasing is hereby deemed a license for the purchaser. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Packet not in accordance with the terms delineated herein is expressly prohibited. NonRefundable MICHELLE R. MILLER CLERK & COMPTROLLER ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA County Civil division 250 N.W. Country Club Drive Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34986 (772) 785-5880 REPLEVIN INFORMATION (for return of personal property taken by a government entity) These procedures are to be used by any person seeking the return of personal property (including weapons) taken by a government entity for purposes other than for a criminal investigation, as an incident to arrest, pursuant to a search warrant, or any other seizure for which the Florida Statutes provide a specific procedure for return. This Statement of Claim for Replevin is for use by those who seek return of personal property taken for other purposes, such as “safekeeping”, and for which the Florida Statutes provide no procedures. JURISDICTION - A replevin complaint must be filed in the Court which holds jurisdiction based upon the value of the property sought to be replevied. When property consists of several articles, the property may not be divided to give jurisdiction to the Small Claims Court. VENUE – A replevin action must be brought in the county where the property sought is located, where the defendant is located or where the cause of action occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • English/Vietnamese Legal Glossary
    English/Vietnamese Legal Glossary Translated from English into Vietnamese by Kim Ryan, Esq. Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento 720 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 874-6867 Fax: (916) 874-8229 www.saccourt.com 2005 Disclaimer The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Court"), has prepared this Legal Glossary. The Court cannot guarantee that the translations contained therein are completely accurate, although reasonable attempts were made to achieve this goal. This glossary is to be used for general reference purposes only, should be considered a "work- in-progress," and is not intended to provide legal advice. This glossary is not intended to be used as a study guide for purposes of passing California court interpreter certification examinations, as some terminology might differ when used in specific context. Neither the Administrative Office of the Courts, nor the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, nor any of its officials or employees assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy of these translations. For more information or comments, please contact Ms. Elaine Flores, Administrative Services Officer II of the Court, at (916) 874-8663 or via e-mail at [email protected]. 1203.03 PC MOTION - Request to cancel, Thænh nguyeän 1203.03 Hình Luaät. modify, change or terminate probation. 1203.4 PC MOTION - Request to take back Thænh nguyeän 1203.04 Hình Luaät. guilty plea or set aside a guilty verdict, and dismiss the accusations or information. (Made after probation has either terminated or defendant was discharged from probation prior to termination.) 170.6 PC MOTION - Request to disqualify Thænh nguyeän 170.6 Hình Luaät.
    [Show full text]
  • Regular Claims Brochure.Pdf
    YOUR GUIDE TO THE REGULAR CLAIMS COURT QUESTIONS & ANSWERS The Judiciary State of Hawai‘i District Court of the First Circuit This Guide is provided to you to give general information about the procedures used in District Court. However, you should understand that the District Court staff is not permitted to give legal advice to any party and does not draft legal documents for litigants. Anyone requiring such services should consult an attorney licensed to practice law in Hawai‘i. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require an accommodation or assistance, please contact the District Court Administration Office at PHONE NO. 538-5121, FAX 538-5233, or TTY 539-4853. WHAT IS REGULAR CLAIMS DIVISION? It is a division of the District Court in which certain types of claims between two or more parties are decided, by a judge not a jury, in a proceeding known as a “civil action”. Various types of claims include: assumpsit (breach of contract), tort, summary possession, and replevin, as well as other proceedings designated by law. Legal requirements and procedures governing the Regular Claims Division are set forth in the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, the Rules of the District Court and the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure. WHO ARE THE PARTIES? A person who files a claim is called the plaintiff and a person against whom a claim is filed is called the defendant. CAN A PARTY BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY? YES. An attorney may represent either party. However, all corporations must be represented by an attorney. Page 1 WHAT TYPES OF CASES CAN BE FILED IN THE REGULAR CLAIMS DIVISION? The Regular Claims Division handles all civil actions in which the debt, damages, or value of property claimed does not exceed $40,000, except cases involving summary possession or ejectment, for which no monetary limit applies.
    [Show full text]