Deported plaintiff can proceed with civil rights case

This plaintiff sued various correctional officials for civil rights violations arising from his incarceration. He claims that the jailers were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The problem is that, after plaintiff was released from prison, he was deported to the Dominican Republic. The question becomes: how do we litigate this case if plaintiff is permanently out of the country? The district court dismissed the case over the logistical difficulties arising from all of this. The Court of Appeals reinstates the case.

The case is Rodriguez v. Gusman, decided on August 31. The trial court said the case could be reopened "for good cause shown," such as if plaintiff is able to return to the country. But plaintiff doesn't want to wait that long. The Second Circuit (Newman, Pooler and Hall) states that "administrative closure" of a lawsuit, as one of the "most drastic alternatives" available to a district court, "should be used sparingly and only as a last resort."

There is not much case law to guide situations like this, so the Second Circuit uses this case to lay down some rules, noting that there is a strong public interest in vindicating civil rights allegedly violated by public officials. This requires "a strict standard . . . to ensure that these plaintiffs are not deeply prejudiced." The Circuit borrows from a Fourth Circuit case, Muhammad v. Warden, 849 F.2d 107 (4th Cir. 1988),  

while “an incarcerated litigant’s right is necessarily qualified, . . . [that] does not mean that it can be arbitrarily denied by dismissal or indefinite stays; the law requires a reasoned consideration of the alternatives,” such as: making provisions for the prisoner to attend in person, either at his own expense, or at government expense, and in any case in government custody; trying the case without the prisoner’s presence in the courtroom, either on depositions or affidavits or with aid of video; and even trying the case without a jury in the place of incarceration. 

The Second Circuit notes that plaintiff does not have to appear in court for trial, as the parties can use his video depositions or video-conference instead. While some district court cases have held that "dismissal is appropriate" when a litigant is unavailable for trial, this is a case-specific question, and the Court of Appeals finds that plaintiff's lawyers are skilled enough to present his claims even without his presence at trial. And, while it may be difficult to gather medical evidence while plaintiff is out of the country, such as medical examinations, defendants can send a physician to the Dominican Republic or hire a local doctor to examine plaintiff. As for depositions, they can be accomplished through video-conferences. The case is restored to the docket.