A recent court decision has affirmed the dismissal of a civil case involving allegations of conspiracy and misuse of prison processes. The complaint, filed by William Reno Gerber in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 7, 2024, named Connie Waters as the defendant.
Gerber's lawsuit against Waters and Fred Gerber dates back to 2021, alleging that they conspired to steal from him. Additionally, Gerber accused Waters of misusing prison processes by reporting that he had threatened her over the phone and in writing. This information in his file could potentially jeopardize his chances for parole. Despite these serious allegations, the trial court dismissed the case against Waters because Gerber failed to file an amended complaint within the 60-day period granted by the court.
The court's decision came after Waters filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case two weeks after the deadline had passed. According to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(h), a defendant can request dismissal if a plaintiff fails to amend their complaint within the allowed time following a demurrer. Waters' counsel made various efforts to notify Gerber about this motion both directly and through his representatives. Despite these efforts, Gerber argued that he did not receive proper notice and was being systematically denied access to the courts.
Gerber moved for reconsideration under section 1008 and sought relief under section 478, claiming he had not received notice of the ex parte application and was being denied access to justice. However, evidence showed that Gerber did receive notice on time and worked with his attorneys before the hearing to organize his response. The court found no merit in Gerber's arguments against dismissal or his claim that he believed he had 90 days instead of 60 days to file an amended answer.
The trial court also addressed Gerber's claims regarding his lack of access to courts as an inmate representing himself. Citing cases like Wantuch v. Davis (1995) and Smith v. Ogbuehi (2019), which emphasize careful consideration for indigent prisoners' access to courts, the court noted that Gerber did not claim indigence nor requested appointed counsel. Instead, he had attorneys assisting him with parole matters who also attended some hearings in this case.
Ultimately, Judge Michael P. Vicencia upheld Waters' demurrer dismissal due to procedural non-compliance by Gerber. The appellate court affirmed this decision along with denying Gerber’s motion for reconsideration or other reliefs sought.
The attorneys involved in this case include Paymon Z. Bidari from Bidari Civil Defense representing Connie Waters while William Reno Gerber represented himself pro per without any appearance from Fred Gerber’s side.