Opinion ID: 1060567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Abeyance Issue

Text: Relying upon Whisnant v. Byrd , Mr. Logan argues that the trial court erred by not holding his malpractice action in abeyance until he was released from prison. In Whisnant we held: [A] prisoner has a constitutional right to institute and prosecute a civil action seeking redress for injury or damage to his person or property, or for the vindication of any other legal right; however, this is a qualified and restricted right.     [A]bsent unusual circumstances, prisoners who have filed their civil complaints, unrelated to the legality of their convictions and who have thus protected themselves against the running of any statute of limitations, will not be afforded the opportunity to appear in court to present their cases during their prison terms. Instead such matters will be held in abeyance until the prisoner shall have been released from prison and is in a position to prepare and present his case. Whisnant, 525 S.W.2d at 153-54. See also Smith v. Peebles, 681 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984) (citing Whisnant and stating: In the instant case plaintiff prisoner's `constitutional right to institute and prosecute a civil action' was effectively denied when the Trial Judge refused a continuance and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for `failure to prosecute.'). Mr. Winstead argues that Whisnant and Smith apply only to the right of prisoners to appear at the trial of their civil suits, but they do not guarantee a right to be present during the disposition of pre-trial matters, nor do they discuss how a trial court should handle pre-trial matters. Contending that a motion for summary judgment is a pre-trial matter, Mr. Winstead argues that Mr. Logan had no right to be present during the trial court's consideration of the motion, and, accordingly, no right to an abeyance of proceedings. As support for this argument, Mr. Winstead cites Sanjines v. Ortwein & Assocs., 984 S.W.2d 907 (Tenn.1998), in which a pro se inmate simultaneously filed a legal malpractice action against his attorney and a post-conviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in the civil action, and the plaintiff asked the trial court to stay the malpractice action until the conclusion of the post-conviction proceedings. In deciding that the prisoner was not entitled to a stay of the malpractice suit, this Court observed that: While the Court in Whisnant was concerned with the rights of inmates to file civil complaints, the Court did not hold that a stay is necessary in all civil actions filed by incarcerated persons in order to prevent prejudice to the judicial process. Neither did the Court hold that such persons have a constitutional right to a stay of their civil actions. The Court was concerned only with the rights and qualifications of an inmate to appear in court for trial. Whisnant does not discuss how a trial court should handle pre-trial matters such as stays of proceedings in inmate civil actions. Sanjines v. Ortwein, 984 S.W.2d at 910. While the Sanjines case dealt with a plaintiff's filing of simultaneous civil and post-conviction actions, its language makes clear that incarcerated plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to a stay of their civil proceedings. We agree with Mr. Winstead and with our reasoning in Sanjines and hold that although incarcerated plaintiffs have a constitutional right to initiate and prosecute a civil action, they do not retain an absolute right to have civil litigation held in abeyance until they are released from custody, nor do they retain an absolute right to be present at each stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we overrule Whisnant to the extent that it may be interpreted to guarantee incarcerated plaintiffs these absolute rights. Instead, we hold that the decision of whether or not to stay civil proceedings for a prisoner is left to the discretion of the trial court. Acting on a case-by-case basis, the trial court must weigh the competing interests of the inmate's ability to present proof and the burden on the judicial system and the defendant in continuing the action. In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for abeyance, appellate courts should employ an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Sanjines v. Ortwein, 984 S.W.2d at 909. One of the main factors to be considered by the trial court in considering a motion for abeyance is whether the inmate will be released from prison and able to appear in court within a reasonable amount of time from the filing of the suit. This determination will unmistakably vary from one case to the next. Besides the length of the prisoner's remaining sentence, other countervailing interests should be considered by the court, including the burden on the court in maintaining a docket on which such claims will remain for an extended period, and the inconvenience and impracticability of litigating a suit several years after its filing. Not only will prisoners have a more difficult time presenting proof if their cases are held in abeyance, but defendants have a right to have claims against them timely adjudicated. The longer a suit is held in abeyance, the more difficult it will be to try on its merits. Witnesses may move or pass away, memories will fade, and proof will become harder to obtain. It is in everyone's best interestthe court's, plaintiff's, and defendant'sto require the incarcerated litigant's suit to proceed, when reasonable under the circumstances. However we hasten to add that when a trial court denies a prisoner's request for an abeyance, it should, within its discretion, afford the prisoner sufficient time for filing briefs and motions and for conducting discovery. This is especially true when inmates are proceeding pro se. Trial courts should waive the time requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and set reasonable time restrictions in such instances. Many suits can be adjudicated on the pleadings. Motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and other such pre-trial matters can be litigated by an inmate in custody. We recognize, as Mr. Logan points out, that a prisoner filing or rebutting a motion for summary judgment supported by an expert affidavit might have a more difficult task in obtaining an expert affidavit than would a litigant who is not incarcerated. In such instances trial courts should grant additional time to prisoners to prepare relevant filings, as the circumstances of the case direct. Nonetheless, we are of the opinion that an incarcerated litigant, acting pro se or having the benefit of an attorney, can prepare and support pre-trial motions. With the discretion of the trial court in granting necessary extensions of time, prisoners should be able to proceed in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, requiring incarcerated plaintiffs to prosecute civil claims will serve to eliminate the many frivolous actions by inmates that burden the court system. In order to spare defendants, potential witnesses and the courts the burden of having prisoners' civil actions held in abeyance for years, trial courts should be permitted to dispose of frivolous suits via pre-trial motions. For example, if a plaintiff's legal malpractice allegations lack merit, he or she would find it difficult to obtain an expert witness willing to state in an affidavit that the defendant violated the applicable standard of care. Holding such a case in abeyance until the prisoner has been released from custody would be an exercise in futility and would unduly burden the court and the defendant. In the instant case, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to rule on Mr. Logan's Motion to Put in Abeyance. Not only does such an omission give the impression that a litigant is being ignored, but appellate review becomes more difficult without an order specifying reasons for a trial court's grant or denial of a motion. In this case, Mr. Winstead moved for summary judgment on September 25, 1998. Four days later, Mr. Logan filed a motion requesting that the matter be held in abeyance until his release from prison. In addition, Mr. Logan asked that summary judgment be dismissed until discovery is completed. The trial court never ruled upon Mr. Logan's abeyance motion, and approximately three months later, the trial court granted Mr. Winstead summary judgment upon the record without oral argument. As previously explained herein, incarcerated plaintiffs do not have an absolute right to have civil litigation held in abeyance until they are released from prison. However, such plaintiffs are entitled to have requests for abeyances considered and determined under the appropriate legal standards. There is nothing in the record of this appeal to indicate that the trial court gave any consideration to Mr. Logan's request for an abeyance. Under these circumstances, the trial court erred. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals which granted summary judgment to Mr. Winstead. We remand this case to the trial court to consider, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in this opinion, whether Mr. Logan's request for an abeyance should be granted. If, in its discretion, the trial court determines that an abeyance is not appropriate, the trial court may deny Mr. Logan's request for an abeyance and rule upon Mr. Winstead's motion for summary judgment after affording Mr. Logan sufficient time to respond to the summary judgment motion. [6]