Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Lawyer’s Withholding of File Wrongful—but No Damages
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday laced into a veteran criminal law attorney for failing to respond to repeated requests from an incarcerated former client for his file, but affirmed a judgment in favor of the lawyer in the inmate’s action for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
The plaintiff, Sekayi Rudo White—who was convicted on six counts of forcible rape, one count of attempted forcible rape, and other crimes and was sentenced to 112 years in prison—had failed to show harm, Justice William W. Bedsworth said in an opinion that affirms a judgment by Orange Superior Court Judge Martha K. Gooding.
By the time the case went to trial before Gooding, attorney Michael A. Molfetta, who had represented White in connection with his motion for a new trial, had turned over the entire file, on orders of the judge, with the exception of two CDs containing rape examination photos.
The judge found that White was not entitled to the CDs and that the lawyer’s failure to respond to repeated requests by White for the file—over a period of more than two years—had not impeded his efforts to secure postconviction relief.
White blamed Molfetta’s delay for his missing the deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court. He did file such a petition in the Orange Superior Court, which failed.
Harm Not Shown
Bedsworth agreed with Gooding that White showed no harm from the conversion. He noted that by the time White requested his file from Molfetta, in June 2014, his appeal had already been denied, on Dec. 31, 2013, and the California Supreme Court had denied White’s petition for review, on March 19, 2014.
White filed his petition in the Orange County Superior Court on March 29, 2018, which was denied on May 17, 2018.
“To the extent the habeas petition was denied for failure to raise arguments on appeal,” Bedsworth wrote, “said harm was not legally attributable to Molfetta.”
Federal Habeas Relief
He said that although the federal one-year deadline had passed by the time White received the file, the doctrine of equitable tolling, based on the withholding of the file, was possibly available to him.
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott on May 21, 2020, called for briefing by White on the question of timeliness of his April 21, 2020 petition for a writ of habeas corpus that White constructively filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. She said:
“Petitioner may be entitled to equitable tolling on the grounds that conflict counsel, Michael Molfetta, at first failed to provide him with any portion of his file.”
She also noted that statutory tolling was available from the time of the filing of the first habeas petition in state court until the California Supreme Court rejects such a bid.
White’s explanation for not seeking habeas relief in the state court until March 2018 was unconvincing and the District Court dismissed the petition on Nov. 16, 2020. Bedsworth wrote: “[E]ven though Molfetta wrongfully withheld the file, our research discloses White’s own delay was the reason for the dismissal of his petition. Said legal harm is not directly traceable to Molfetta’s wrongful conduct….” He pointed out that White had failed to persuade Gooding that emotional distress was suffered by him stemming from the conversion.
Bedsworth’s Observations
Bedsworth began his opinion by observing:
“The practice of law has become complex and difficult. If practiced as it should be—as a profession—it has never been easy. But the demands on counsel’s time and talent have multiplied exponentially of late, and the 21st Century practitioner’s responsibilities far outstrip those we bore 25 years ago.
“But recognition of this fact should be an inspiration to excellence rather than an explanation for failure. No matter how stressed and challenged they may be, lawyers must treat clients—all clients—with basic professional courtesy. That seems rudimentary, but it’s often overlooked or neglected. It shouldn’t be.”
He told of Molfetta’s repeated failures to respond to White’s communications, and commented:
“We cannot condone such laxity on the part of a lawyer toward his client. But absent a miscarriage of justice (of which we have no evidence here) our moral and professional assessments, however deeply felt, cannot create a cause of action in tort. As explained herein, we must agree with the trial court: White failed to adequately plead and prove injury from Molfetta’s wrongful behavior. We therefore affirm its judgment in Molfetta’s favor but we publish in the hope the embarrassment we feel about the case can lead to improvement.”
Rulings Against White
After explaining the reasons for affirming, Bedsworth remarked: “In ruling as we do, we do not wish to minimize the emotional impact of incarceration, especially if one genuinely believes it to be wrongful or in error. It is neither our place nor our intention to diminish the suffering of anyone whose quest for post-conviction relief is hampered or harmed by facts such as these. But evaluation of the fact of such impact—as well as the legal sufficiency of White’s habeas petition—is a task that has fallen to other colleagues, and they have reasonably ruled against White.
“So we are left with the proverbial wrong for which there is no remedy. Or, more precisely, we are left with a wrong from which there were no damages—at least no legally cognizable damages. We offer no succor to those who let White down, and we admonish all who would consider similar inaction to give serious thought to the potential consequences. The next such petitioner may well be able to establish one of the things White was not and thereby prove damages.”
The case is White v. Molfetta, G058289.
White was in pro per and Molfetta was represented by Santa Ana attorney Kenneth A. Reed.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company