holding that district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied incarcerated plaintiff’s request for an order requiring his transport from one federal penitentiary to another for a motion hearing, but abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute when he did not appear for the hearing
How later courts described this case
- holding that district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied incarcerated plaintiff’s request for an order requiring his transport from one federal penitentiary to another for a motion hearing, but abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute when he did not appear for the hearing
- holding that an incarcerated litigant has “no right to be personally present at any stage of the judicial proceedings.”
- holding that when a prisoner’s civil action reaches the trial stage after surviving motions to dismiss and summary judgment, the trial court must take all reasonable steps to insure that the prisoner has his or her day in court
- holding district court should attempt to make meaningful accommodations to inmate during trial proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAILEY BROWN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the result reached in the opinion is required by the law and therefore I concur. The fact remains, however, that the district judge is left with a pending case that apparently calls for an evidentiary hearing, * and yet there is no way to dispose of it, so long as appellant is a prisoner in an institution far away, without great expense to the government. It is well known that the district courts have many cases such as this one gathering age. It seems that the problem presented by such cases calls for a study and ultimately, perhaps, for legislation as a guide to the courts for the proper steps to take in effecting their disposition.
The district judge has held that appellant has stated a claim for relief with respect to the alleged refusal to allow him to have his law books in jail and alleged interference with his mail. The appellee has denied the allegations.