 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Veteto v. Swanson Services Corp.12/30/2003
prisoner has no right to appear in person in the trial of a civil suit unrelated to his confinement. We pointed out that a prisoner could take his own oral or written deposition under Rule 30 or 31, [Ala.]R.Civ.P., to be used at trial pursuant to Rule 32(a)(3)(C), [Ala.] R. Civ. P."
480 So. 2d at 1204.
On January 3, 2003, Veteto filed a motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, directed at the December 9 order dismissing his case for want of prosecution; he included in the motion the following elaboration upon his inability to procure notarial services before he transmitted his "deposition":
"I finished the deposition on November 25, 2002, and immediately notified the Law Librarian employee Guthrie, to notarize my deposition and signature. He told me that he did not yet have his license and for me to get employee [Patrice] Richie, who is licensed to notarize my document. I sent one inmate request to Richie, via an employee and another via the Intra-Facility Mail System requesting that she notarize my deposition 'ASAP.' I never heard from her and, fearing my deposition may be untimely, mailed it unnotarized on December 3, 2002. On December 4, 2002, Richie summoned me to the Segregation Office for the purpose of notarizing my already mailed deposition. When I asked her the date on the request, Richie admitted that it was November 27, 2002, but said she had just received my request for notarization. I do not believe that she never received the one request from the employee and the other request had taken a week to move 200 feet through the intra-facility mail system. Nevertheless, I cannot be faulted for the lack of notarization of my deposition."
Veteto declared in the motion "under penalty of perjury that the facts, statements, and information given in my [deposition] ... true and correct." This motion was "sworn to and subscribed before" notary public Patrice R. Richie on December 31, 2002, and her official seal is affixed. Notably, Veteto does not explain why, on December 4, he did not take advantage of Richie's offer to notarize his deposition and submit a notarized verification of the deposition he had mailed the day before.
The trial judge denied Veteto's motion on February 16, 2003, and this appeal followed.
A long line of opinions of this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals have explained that an incarcerated civil plaintiff is not entitled to be brought from the penitentiary to testify in his own behalf. The proper remedy is for the incarcerated civil plaintiff to take his or her own testimony, either upon written questions under Rule 31, Ala. R. Civ. P., or upon oral examination under Rule 30, Ala. R. Civ. P.
This rule has been followed unwaveringly in such cases as Lightfoot v. McDonald, 587 So. 2d 936 (Ala. 1991); Clements v. Moncrief, 549 So. 2d 479 (Ala. 1989); Hines, supra; Hubbard v. Montgomery, 372 So. 2d 315 (Ala. 1979); and Whitehead v. BiPetro Marketing, Inc., 356 So. 2d 150 (Ala. 1978). Rule 30, Ala. R. Civ. P., explains how a party wishing to take a deposition upon oral examination should proceed. Rule 31 explains how a deposition may be taken upon written questions. Both Rule 30(a) and 31(a) contain almost identical versions of the statement that " he deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court and on such terms as the court prescribes." Rule 32(a)(3)(C) provides that " he deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds ... that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of ... imprisonment ...." See Whitehead v. Baranco Color Labs, Inc., 353 So. 2d 793, 794 (Ala. 1977).
Veteto n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|