Background
Michael A. Torrey, an incarcerated individual, filed a civil action in Escambia County Court against multiple defendants seeking to have them removed from what he claimed was his real property and to recover unpaid rent. The trial court scheduled a hearing on the matter. Torrey filed a motion requesting either that he be transported to the courthouse for the hearing or that he be permitted to appear electronically.
The trial court denied Torrey’s motion for transportation or electronic appearance. The hearing proceeded without Torrey’s participation, and the court dismissed his civil action. Torrey appealed the dismissal, arguing that the trial court violated his right to be heard by refusing both in-person and electronic appearance.
The Court’s Holding
The First DCA reversed and remanded, holding 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.”
The court relied on Burdoo v. Plympton, 219 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), which established that “[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.'” Once the prisoner makes such a request, “the right is clear.”
The court cited a consistent line of First DCA precedent including Weston v. Weston, 307 So. 3d 975, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) and Havenner v. Hutchinson, 162 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), as well as Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530, which governs communication technology in court proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner who affirmatively requests to appear—whether in person or electronically—has a clear right to be heard in civil litigation. The trial court cannot proceed with a hearing and dismiss the case without providing some means of participation.
- The prisoner must bring the request to the court’s attention. The right is not automatically triggered by incarceration alone—it requires an affirmative request for appearance.
- Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 provides the procedural framework for electronic appearances. Courts must consider technological alternatives to transportation when an incarcerated party requests to participate.
- Dismissal of a civil action without providing an incarcerated plaintiff any opportunity to be heard constitutes reversible error per established First DCA precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms a well-established but frequently litigated principle in Florida civil practice: incarcerated litigants who properly request to participate in proceedings have a right to be heard. With the expansion of remote hearing technology—accelerated since 2020—courts have even less justification for denying electronic appearance when transportation is impractical.
For practitioners representing incarcerated clients in civil matters such as property disputes, family law cases, or landlord-tenant actions, this case underscores the importance of timely filing a motion for electronic appearance before any scheduled hearing. Conversely, for opposing counsel, this opinion serves as a reminder that proceeding to hearing and obtaining a dismissal without the incarcerated party’s participation creates a reversible error that will require relitigating the matter from the beginning.