Appeals panel faults judges for denying inmate court access

A 4th District Court of Appeal panel rebuked San Diego Superior Court judges Thursday for twice issuing domestic violence restraining orders without allowing the incarcerated defendant to appear.

Each time, the man asked to appear remotely by phone or to be transported to court. In the latest case, Judge Brigid Campo issued a five-year restraining order without hearing him, after the appellate court reversed a three-year order issued by another judge.

"This is the second time we reverse a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued for J.S.'s protection," Justice Truc T. Do wrote for the unanimous panel in J.S. v. D.A., D086356 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, filed Feb. 25, 2026) (S.D. Cty. Super. Ct. No. 25FDV00839C). Acting Presiding Justice Terry B. O'Rourke and Justice David M. Rubin concurred.

In an opinion last April, the court reversed a three-year DVRO that J.S. obtained against her former fiancé because the trial judge "failed to address his request to be transported from the San Diego County Jail to court for the evidentiary hearing before proceeding without him." (J.S. v. D.A. (Apr. 10, 2025, D083669) [nonpub. opn.].)

In the second appeal, J.S. sought another domestic violence restraining order, alleging the abuse had continued. She alleged he was in prison but continued contacting her and threatening harm upon release. Since the relationship began, she said, he had broken her nose and given her two black eyes.

The defendant asked Campo to order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to arrange his telephonic appearance at the evidentiary hearing. "As before, but with a different bench officer, the court failed to address his request and issued a five-year DVRO at a hearing without him," Do wrote in the appellate opinion.

"We must again reverse and remand to the court for proceedings consistent with appellant's right to meaningful access to the courts," the opinion said. "Indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions that threaten their interests have a right to meaningful access to the courts to be heard in their defense."

Do said the remedy is a new hearing, adding that "Duplicative proceedings necessitated by such preventable errors are burdensome for victims of domestic violence and may discourage them from pursuing protective relief."

The panel outlined options for ensuring access, including deferring proceedings until release, appointing counsel, transporting the prisoner, conducting hearings by telephone or video, holding proceedings in prison, permitting depositions and written discovery, or using other electronic means.

The panel said the temporary restraining order will remain in effect for 30 days to allow a full hearing on a longer restraining order.