Case Name: Stacey L. HEMPHILL, Petitioner, v. Honorable Preston HARBUCK, Associate District Judge and/or Atoka County District Court, Respondent
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 2014-04-03
Citations: 326 P.3d 521
Docket Number: No. 111,984
Parties: Stacey L. HEMPHILL, Petitioner, v. Honorable Preston HARBUCK, Associate District Judge and/or Atoka County District Court, Respondent.
Judges: COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 326
Pages: 521–526

Head Matter:
2014 OK 24
Stacey L. HEMPHILL, Petitioner, v. Honorable Preston HARBUCK, Associate District Judge and/or Atoka County District Court, Respondent.
No. 111,984.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
April 3, 2014.

Opinion:
ORDER ASSUMING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ATOKA COUNTY
T1 The petitioner, Stacey Hemphill (Hemphill) is an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections On May 11, 2012, while incarcerated in Atoka County, he filed a petition in the District Court of Atoka County to change his name to "Apokalypse God Allah." On June 25, 2012, the trial court stayed the proceedings, pending notice to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the resolution of a pending action Hemphill had filed in Federal Court Even though the Federal action was not disposed of until February 11, 2013, the trial court denied the name change on July 26, 2012.
¶2 Beginning in September of 201%, Hemphill continually attempted to keep the matter alive and the trial court continually attempted to end it. At some point, on or about November 21, 2012, Hemphill was transferred to the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. On November 27, 2012, at a scheduled hearing on the matter, the trial court attempted to transfer the matter to Alfalfa County. The trial court explained in a response on filed in this Court on July 31, 2013, that the cause was never transferred because Hemp-hill never sought a transfer.
13 On July 16, 2013, Hemphill filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction with this Court. On September 30, 2013, we directed the respondent district court to hear and determine Hemphill's claim for relief. The order clearly stated that: "Johnson v. Scott, 1985 OK 50, ¶ 13, 702 P.2d 56, 59 allows for testimony offered by telephone."
{4 The respondent district court set the hearing for October 22, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the petitioner again requested that we assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus/prohibition to the trial court. On December 12, 2018, the judge entered an order again denying the change of name. He found that: 1) Hemphill's notice of the proceedings was deficient; and 2) Hemphill failed to appear as directed by the Court. 'The order states in pertinent part:
[Plursuant to Johnson v. Scott, 1985 OK 50, 702 P.2d 56, pursuant to the policy of the 25th Judicial District, and pursuant to 12 § 1634, after being notified that 'sworn testimony' was expected to be given in person, unless ordered and/or allowed by this Court.
¶5 The trial court did not provide this Court with a written copy of the policy of the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District referred to in the order. Nor have the District Court Rules for that District, the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District, been provided to the Administrative Office of the Courts and are thus not available online on the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN). Pursuant to 20 00.98.2011 §$ 91.8, local court rules must be in writing and must be published by the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network to be valid and enforceable. Because this has not been done, any local rules for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District are invalid and unenforceable.
¶6 On January 14, 2014, Hemphill also filed an appeal with this Court of the trial court's final order of December 12, 2013, denying his name change. This case, No. 112,480, has not yet had briefing due or a completed record filed. The record in this cause does not provide enough information to review the alleged deficiency in notice, if any. Onee the record is complete in 112,480, the notice issue may, as the dissent suggests, be resolved in that cause. The primary issue in this cause is the unwillingness of the trial court to allow a prisoner to give sworn testimony without personally appearing.
¶7 This matter is a civil case, a comparatively simple action for a change of name. This Court is fully aware of the difficulties faced by the judges of the district courts of this state in dealing with inmates proceeding pro se in civil matters. This matter is a textbook example of the difficulties in dealing with an inmate appearing pro se in a civil matter. However, prison inmates have a right of access to the courts of Oklahoma civil matters, although they do not have the right to appear personally. The judge and this Court have both cited Johnson v. Scott, 1985 OK 50, ¶ 9-11, 702 P.2d 56, in the course of this matter. A full reading of the applicable language in that case is instructive:
Article 2, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma provides in pertinent part: "The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation...."
Inasmuch as appellant was unable to testify because he was imprisoned, we conclude that the judge had discretion to depose appellant under the provisions of 12 O.S.Supp.1982 § 3204 and 3209 and 12 0.98.1981 § 397. The judge could have ordered appellant's testimony be taken by deposition upon written questions under 12 O.S$.Supp.1982 § 3208(A), by deposition taken by telephone under 12 O.S$.Supp. 1982 § 3207(C)(7), or that a deposition upon oral examination be recorded by other than stenographic means under 12 O.S8.Supp.1982 § 3207(C)(4). Hence, he abused such discretion and by so doing violated appellant's constitutional right of access to the courts.
18 We have, in other cases, had to direct the district courts to permit the testimony of incarcerated civil litigants by appropriate arrangements. In Harmon v. Harmon, 1997 OK 91, ¶ 13, 943 P.2d 599 we held that the trial court should have made some type of arrangement(s) for husband's participation in his divorcee and child custody hearing. In Harris v. State ex rel. Macy, 1992 OK 6, 825 P.2d 1320 we held that a district court may not refuse to hear an inmate's civil suit for non-appearance at a court hearing. Recently in an unpublished order in Herd v. Smith, Case No. 109,668, we ordered the trial court to allow an incarcerated person to give telephonic testimony in his own divoree case.
¶9 To be clear, inmate testimony in a civil case by telephone, video conference or other electronic means is used in many jurisdictions to ensure both appropriate inmate access to courts and the timely resolution of cases. The use of alternative methods of inmate testimony is no longer unusual. Such procedures are so commonplace that they must always be considered as alternative methods of testimony in any civil case where an inmate is a litigant. The trial court is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to testify by telephone or other suitable electronic means. This does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to a name change. He is, however, under Oklahoma law, allowed to appear by telephone or other suitable electronic means, rather than in person.
APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION GRANTED. APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED.
TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO TESTIFY BY TELEPHONE OR OTHER SUITABLE ELECTRONIC MEANS.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ., concur.
. Website of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
. Apparently, this was his second attempt at a name change. His first request for a change of name was dismissed in 2009. Docket of the District Court of Atoka County, Case Number CV 2009-0051.
. Docket of the District Court of Atoka County, Case Number CV-2012-00025, states:
PETITIONER'S NOTICE TO THE COURT IN RE OF COURT MINUTE ISSUED BY JUDGE: HON. PRESTON HARBUCK, DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS TO THE O.S.B.I. INCLUDING PROCEEDINGS STAYED UNTIL PROPER NOTICE IS GIVEN AND FEDERAL COURT APPEAL IS COMPLETE.
. Hemphill v. Jones, et al., CV 011-92, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
. Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86, ¶ 8, 223 P.3d 966, 970 (The Oklahoma Supreme Court takes judicial notice of the dockets of appellate and district courts.)
. Docket of the District Court of Atoka County, Case Number CV-2012-00025 states:
November 27, 2012, COURT MINUTE-CASES ORDERED TRANSFERRED TO ALFALFA CO. On July 31, 2013, the trial court explained in a response to this Court that the minute order contained a scriveners error and should have stated that the case would be transferred if requested by Hemphill and if accepted by Alfalfa County.
. A copy of the order of the respondent district court entered on October 7, 2013 is not contained in the record. Reference is made in the order of December 12, 2013 to the directions given to Hemphill by the court in this order.
. Title 20 0.8.2011 § 91.8 provides:
Local rules and administrative orders of a district court shall not conflict with any statutes of this state or any rules of a superior court. Local rules shall be in writing and published on the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network to be valid and enforceable.
. Title 12 0.5.2011 § 1631-1637. Title 12 0.8. 2011 § 1634 provides:
The material allegations of the petition shall be sustained by sworn evidence, and the prayer of the petition shall be granted unless the court or judge finds that the change is sought for an illegal or fraudulent purpose, or that a material allegation in the petition is false.
. Gaines v. Maynard, 1991 OK 27, 808 P.2d 672; Kordis v. Kordis, 2001 OK 99, 37 P.3d 866.
. For example, Walbert v. Walbert, 1997 ND 164, 567 N.W.2d 829, [Denial of an inmate's due process rights of reasonable access to courts to refuse the opportunity to testify at divorce trial by telephone.]; Webb v. State, 555 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1996), [Offer to inmate to present evidence by telephone afforded fundamental fairness.]; Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, et al., 586 So.2d 1056 (Fla.1991), [Trial court cannot make inmate personally appear when seeking a change of name; a hearing by deposition or telephone is acceptable.].