Former inmate wins appeal

For the fourth time in 16 years, a suit against a prison doctor is sent back to trial court.

SAN DIEGO — A former San Diego County inmate whose nearly two-decadelong battle to get a lawsuit against a prison doctor heard in court resulted in a landmark state Supreme Court ruling in July triumphed again this week when an appeals court ruled in his favor.

A unanimous threejudge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego reversed a lower court ruling that dismissed the suit because it had taken too long to get to trial.

The ruling sends the case back to Superior Court and continues a remarkable string of victories by the plaintiff, Barry Jameson.

While incarcerated in state prison in Otay Mesa in 2002, Jameson sued Dr. Tadesse Desta, accusing the doctor of not properly treating his hepatitis C.

The lawsuit bounced back and forth between the Superior Court in San Diego and the appeals court over the next decade — with Jameson doggedly representing himself all the while.

The suit was thrown out before trial three times. But each time Jameson appealed and won a reversal.

In 2014, the case made it to trial. But right after the attorneys gave their opening statements, the judge again granted a motion by Desta’s lawyers to dismiss the case, ruling that Jameson had not shown he would be able to produce the kind of evidence needed to prove his allegations and that the suit took more than five years to get to trial, in violation of state law.

This time, Jameson lost his appeal — but the seeds of a larger victory were planted.

As an indigent plaintiff, Jameson could not afford to hire a certified court reporter for the trial, and the San Diego court had adopted a rule in 2012 that it would no longer provide court reporters in civil cases for free. Appeals courts require a transcript to review and ultimately rule on an appeal. With no transcript, there was no appeal for Jameson.

Undaunted, Jameson appealed to the state Supreme Court — this time getting assistance from a lawyer in Los Angeles who had read the appeals court ruling and took the case pro bono. In a unanimous ruling in July, the high court struck down San Diego’s rule, saying it violated state laws guaranteeing equal justice to all.

That ruling applies to all courts in the state and was hailed by equal justice advocates as a significant victory. But there was one piece of Jameson’s case unresolved: the five-year rule that the lower court had also cited to dismiss the case. The appeals court had not ruled on that issue when it dismissed the appeal because there was no transcript.

The case went back to the appeals court this summer. Jameson argued that the rule did not apply, because at a previous proceeding in 2011 — three years before the start of the trial — the judge had granted a summary judgment motion in Desta’s favor.

Because such a motion considers whether there is a “triable issue of material fact,” that constituted a trial under the law and meant there had been no unlawful delay.

On Monday the appeals court agreed, and — for the fourth time — sent the case back to the trial courts.