177 So. 3d 1067
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Petitioner Bobby Autin filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse alleging battery on Dec. 30, 2014, and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO). A contradictory hearing was set for Jan. 30, 2015.
- Respondent Nadeza Voronkova was personally served in Los Angeles under Louisiana’s Long-Arm Statute on Jan. 10, 2015.
- At the Jan. 30 hearing Autin and his counsel were present; Voronkova was absent and in custody after being arrested the previous day for alleged TRO violations.
- Autin presented testimony and exhibits (texts, phone call logs, and a cellphone photograph) showing Voronkova entered his apartment and sent messages admitting she knew she was violating the TRO.
- The trial court found abuse proved by a preponderance, issued an 18-month final protective order, and summarily denied Voronkova’s motion for a new trial.
- On appeal Voronkova argued due process was violated because the court proceeded in absentia while she was incarcerated; the court affirmed, holding she bore responsibility to seek transport or continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated due process by proceeding in absentia | Autin: proceeding was proper because Voronkova had been served and had notice | Voronkova: due process violated because she was incarcerated (arrested after alleged TRO violation) and could not appear | Held: No due process violation; Voronkova knew the date and failed to seek transport or continuance |
| Whether the denial of motion for new trial was erroneous | Autin: denial proper; no new evidence and Voronkova’s motion corroborated his proofs | Voronkova: motion for new trial warranted due to incarceration preventing attendance and alleged newly discovered evidence | Held: No abuse of discretion; motion failed to present facts or law likely to change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. White, 738 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1984) (prisoner’s right of access to civil courts does not guarantee right to be physically present at civil trial)
- Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1948) (incarceration lawfully limits certain privileges, including personal management of civil actions)
- Holt v. Pitts, 619 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1980) (prisoners who bring civil actions generally have no right to be personally present at trial)
- Ardoin v. Bourgeois, 916 So.2d 329 (La. App. 3d Cir.) (writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is available to secure an inmate’s presence in civil proceedings)
- Falcon v. Falcon, 975 So.2d 40 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (same; mechanisms exist to obtain presence of incarcerated civil parties)