TORREY
v.
RIVERA, THREATTE, ET AL
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.
An incarcerated party in civil litigation has the right to be heard, and if the party requests telephonic participation or asserts a desire to be heard, the trial court must accommodate such request through either telephonic appearance or transportation to court.
[1] An incarcerated party in civil litigation has the right to participate in hearings through telephonic appearance or court-ordered transportation if the party timely reque…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.' . . . If a prisoner requests a telephonic hearing or asserts his desire to be heard on the matter, 'the right is clear.'”
Court citing Burdoo v. Plympton and Johnson v. Johnson to establish the standard for incarcerated parties' participation rights
Michael A. Torrey, an incarcerated individual, filed a civil action against Kattie L. Threatte and Charlie Bank seeking removal from real property and…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
MICHAEL A. TORREY, Appellant,
V.
WILFREDO RIVERA, KATTIE L.
THREATTE, All Residents, and CHARLIE BANK, Appellees.
No. 1D2025-1644
On appeal from the County Court for Escambia County. Barry E. Dickson, Jr., Judge.
June 3, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Michael A. Torrey, who is incarcerated, appeals from the dismissal of the civil action he filed against Appellees Kattie L. Threatte and Charlie Bank to have them removed from what he claimed was his real property and for the payment of rent due. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court reversibly erred in denying his motion to either direct that he be transported to the courthouse for the scheduled hearing on the matter or be able to appear electronically. See Burdoo v. Plympton, 219 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“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.' . . . If a prisoner requests a telephonic hearing or asserts his desire to be heard on the matter, 'the right is clear.'") (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)); see also Weston v. Weston, 307 So. 3d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (same); Havenner v. Hutchinson, 162 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same); Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.530(b) (“[A] court official may authorize the use of communication technology for the presentation of testimony or for other participation in a proceeding upon the written motion of a party....").
Accordingly, the dismissal order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
LEWIS, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Shakira Johnson, 992 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Burdoo v. Plympton, 219 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Weston v. Weston, 307 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)