Merritt v. Matheny et al, No. 2:2009cv00522 - Document 124 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 118 MOTION Requesting Permission to Attend Pre-Trial Conference in Person or Via Video Conference; the court requests that plaintiff be made available by telephone on 10/3/2011 around 1:00 pm to give settlement authority, in the event that it is required. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 9/30/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD WILLIAM A. MERRITT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00522 RUSSELL MATHENY, et al., Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before this court is plaintiff William A. Merritt s motion requesting permission to attend the pre-trial conference scheduled for October 3, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., in person or via video conference. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Mt. Olive Correctional Center, and is unable to otherwise attend the conference. In support of his motion, the plaintiff asserts that while the Court s scheduling order does not require that parties are required to attend the final pre-trial conference, it does require that individuals with settlement authority are to be present either in person or by telephone. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act provides that, to the extent practicable in any action brought with respect to prisons conditions in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or any other federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, shall be conducted by telephone, video conference, or other telecommunications technology without removing the prisoner from the facility in which the prisoner is confined. 1997(e)(f)(2). 42 U.S.C. § Further, a party in a civil case has no constitutional right to attend a pre-trial conference. Thus, the court respectfully requests that the plaintiff be made available by telephone on October 3, around 1:00 p.m. to give settlement authority, in the event that it is required. For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiff s motion to attend the pre-trial conference in person or by video-conference is otherwise DENIED. It is so ORDERED on this 30th day of October, 2011. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.