Although all federal Defendants have now been dismissed from

1

this action, see Order and Memorandum Granting Federal Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss (District of New Hampshire Document (“D.N.H. Doc.”)

#54) (“Order and Memorandum of 11/15/07”) (dismissing last federal

Defendant), the Court identifies the case as it was originally filed,

see Complaint.

 This order amends the Order Vacating Stay and Notice of Status 2

Conference (“Order of 7/6/09”) by replacing “Rhode Island” with “New

Hampshire.” Order of 7/6/09 at 2. It also modifies accordingly the

footnote which appears on page two of that order.

 The Order Granting Motion to Stay Proceedings was signed by the

3

Court on August 27, 2008, and docketed by the Clerk on August 28,

2008. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GERARD BOULANGER, :

 Plaintiff, :

 :

v. : NH 06-cv-00308-WES

 : RI MC 07-23

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, :

NEW HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT, et al., : 1

 Defendants. :

AMENDED ORDER VACATING STAY 2

AND

 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

The stay of proceedings which the Court granted on August

27, 2008, see Order Granting Motion to Stay Proceedings, is 3

hereby vacated. The Court will conduct a telephone status

conference with Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants on July 16,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. At that time the parties should be prepared

to discuss:

1) what, if anything, needs to be done before this matter is

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 78 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 3
 The United States Marshals Service has advised the Court that 4

the estimated cost of Plaintiff’s round trip transportation to New

Hampshire would be slightly more than the approximate $5,000.00 cost

of transporting him to Rhode Island. The cost to the Marshals Service

for each day of trial would be the same, approximately $1,320.00. 

2

scheduled for trial;

2) the names of any witnesses which a party intends to call

at trial;

3) whether Plaintiff has the financial ability to pay the

cost of his transportation to New Hampshire, see Manning v. 4

Tefft, 839 F.Supp. 126, 129 (D.R.I. 1994)([A] prisoner has no

constitutional right to be transported to the trial, free of

charge.”); id. (noting that the use of public funds to pay the

transportation expenses of an indigent civil litigant “would

constitute the kind of affirmative assistance to a civil litigant

that has been held to be beyond the scope of [28 U.S.C.] §

1915”); see also Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690, 697 (7 Cir. th

2005)(“[A] prisoner does not have a constitutional right to

attend the jury trial of his civil rights claim involving the

conditions of his confinement.”); Latiolais v. Whitley, 93 F.3d

205, 208 (5 Cir. 1996)(“prisoner-plaintiffs have no th

constitutional right to be present at their civil trial”);

Lemmons v. Law Firm of Morris & Morris, 39 F.3d 264, 267 (10th

Cir. 1994)(same); Manning v. Tefft, 839 F.Supp. at 129 (“It is

clear that a prisoner does not even have a constitutional right

to be present at a civil trial to which he is party.”)(citing

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 78 Filed 07/16/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730 (7 Cir. 1976); Armstrong v. th

Rushing, 352 F.2d 836, 837 (9 Cir. 1965)). th

ENTER:

/s/ David L. Martin 

DAVID L. MARTIN 

United States Magistrate Judge

July 16, 2009

Case 1:06-cv-00308-SM Document 78 Filed 07/16/09 Page 3 of 3