California Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Ripped Off Prisoner
Jin Woo Park was a prisoner of the State of California at the Corcoran State Prison when he hired Michael L. Guisti to file his petition of habeas corpus in both state and, if necessary, federal courts. Despite accepting the $35,000 contract, Guisti failed to file any petition in any court for Park, which led him to file a breach of contract claim against Guisti.
The court handling Park’s claim sent him a notice of a case management hearing. In response, Park filed a request to be allowed to appear via telephone due to his incarceration and disabled status. He additionally filed for a waiver of fees in which he further notified the court of his incarceration. That waiver was granted.
Guisti filed his answer to Park’s complaint on the day of the case management conference. The case was set for jury trial even though Park was unable to attend the hearing.
Guisti, meanwhile, attempted to have the case dismissed by equating the breach of contract to a malpractice claim. His argument was that because Park did not make a claim of actual innocence, Park had failed to state a cause of action. Here again, Park’s status as a prisoner was reinforced for the court. That was further augmented when Park filed yet another notice of remote appearance as well as a motion opposing Guisti’s motion for judgement, to which he attached an abstract of the judgement showing he was serving a prison sentence. The court subsequently denied Guisti’s motion.
The trial date came and Park did not appear. Guisti, who could not be bothered to do the work for which Park had contracted with him, did show up for that court appearance—and, again, testified that Park was incarcerated. Regardless, the court dismissed Park’s complaint without prejudice, stating that it “had not been informed until this date that the plaintiff was incarcerated in state prison.”
Park appealed the decision and won. In a ruling on November 25, 2025, the state appellate court found the district court had abused its discretion. Because there was no reporter present when the matter was called for trial, it is not even clear that Guisti actually called for a dismissal. Furthermore, had he called for it, the appellate court pointed out it should be used only “in the rarest of circumstances.” The Court went on to point out nine other possible solutions beyond dismissal, including the all-encompassing “implementation of other innovative, imaginative procedures.” The Court found that in contrast to Guisti’s claim that Park did not actively participate, Park worked the case, submitting motions for waivers, written discovery, and more. And, at frequent points, the district court was informed of his incarceration status.
Park’s dismissal was reversed and remanded back to the trial court. The appellate court went on to publish their finding as a notice to the district courts of their duty to ensure that even incarcerated litigants have their day in court. See: Park v. Guisti, Cal. Ct. App. (4th Dist., Div. 3), Case No. G063372 (2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Park v. Guisti, Cal. Ct. App. (4th Dist., Div. 3)
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case No. G063372 (2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |