STANLEY GLEASON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Stanley Gleason, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Amy Jo Field and Kjehl T. Johansen, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent.

On September 11, 2009, plaintiff Stanley Gleason filed his complaint against defendant City of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as the Los Angeles Police Department).   On May 20, 2010, defendant moved for summary judgment.   The superior court's docket does not reflect that Gleason filed any opposition to the motion.   On August 12, 2010, the superior court heard and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendant and against Gleason.   Gleason timely appealed from the judgment.   In his notice designating the record on appeal, Gleason chose to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court.   Gleason, appearing in propria persona, represents in his opening brief on appeal that he is homeless, was arrested for a crime that he did not commit, was assaulted and in other ways mistreated by law enforcement personnel while in custody, and is seeking justice through this lawsuit.

It is the appellant's burden to provide us with a record that is sufficient to establish both error and prejudice.  (Rancho Santa Fe Assn. v. Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28, 46.)   Parties appearing in propria persona are not exempt from such procedural rules.  (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)   Pursuant to Gleason's notice designating the record on appeal, the record before us does not contain (1) Gleason's complaint, (2) defendant's motion for summary judgment, (3) any written opposition to the motion (the docket does not reflect that any opposition was filed), or (4) any statement of the trial court's reasons for granting the motion (the minute order granting the motion states that “[t]he action is dismissed in its entirety as more fully reflected in the notes of the official court reporter,” but the record on appeal contains no reporter's transcript, as Gleason chose in his designation of record).   Because the record on appeal does not indicate what Gleason's claims are, the grounds on which defendant moved for summary judgment, or the trial court's reasons for granting the motion, it does not demonstrate that the trial court erred.   We therefore must affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.   The parties shall bear their own costs of appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

CHANEY, J. JOHNSON, J.