GREGORY S. BURDOO, APPELLANT,
v.
KRISTEN T. PLYMPTON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prisoner has the right to be heard in civil litigation and a court reversibly errs by denying a prisoner's request to appear telephonically without issuing an order for their appearance.
[1] A prisoner involved in civil litigation has the right to be heard, provided the prisoner brings to the court's attention their desire to appear personally or telephonical…
[2] A court commits reversible error when a prisoner requests to appear telephonically and the court fails to issue an order directing the relevant authorities to facilitate…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn incarcerated appellant requested to appear telephonically at a hearing on his motion to dissolve an injunction. The lower court scheduled the heari…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Appellant, Gregory S. Burdoo, who is incarcerated, appeals the denial of his motion to ’dissolve injunction against him. Burdoo argues the lower court erred by not allowing him to appear telephonically or in person at the hearing. We agree and reverse.
The record indicates Burdoo properly brought to the lower court’s attention his desire to attend the hearing telephonically. Specifically, Appellant’s motion stated, “The Petitioner requests a telephonic hearing to attend the hearing, as the costs for transportation can easily be avoided. However, Petitioner requires an order for this Court to secure access to a telephone line through prison officials,” Despite Appellant’s request, the lower court issued an order scheduling a hearing to occur at the courthouse. No subsequent order for telephonic hearing was entered, nor was an order to transport Appellant to the hearing issued. Accordingly, Appellant was not present at the hearing, in person or tele-phonically. Following the hearing, the lower court denied Appellant’s motion.
A prisoner involved in civil litigation has the right to be heard; however, “the prisoner must bring to the court’s attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at hearing or trial.” Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So.2d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). If a prisoner requests a telephonic hearing or asserts his desire to be. heard on the matter, “the right is clear.” Johnson, 992 So.2d at 401. A court reversibly errs when a prisoner requests to appear telephonically, and the court fails to issue an order directed to the Department of Corrections requiring the prisoner to appear telephoni-cally. See Havenner v. Hutchinson, 162 So.3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
*172Because Burdoo properly notified the lower court that he wished to appear telephonically and he was denied the opportunity to appear, we reverse the order denying Burdoo’s motion to dissolve the injunction and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ROWE, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weston v. Weston, 307 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…judgment of dissolution that awarded the appellee the marital home and property. This appeal followed. “[A] prisoner must bring to the court’s attention his desire to appear personally or telephonically at a hearing or trial.” Burdoo v. Plympton, 219 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). If the prisoner requests to be heard, “the right is clear.” Id. The appellant made clear his desire to appear at the final hearing telephonically. Th…
-
Golden v. Est. of Hans G. Tanzler, Jr., 257 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Torrey v. Rivera (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Shakira Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 977 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Havenner v. Debora Hutchinson, 162 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)