HEMPHILL v. HARBUCK, 2014 OK 24

Hemphill, an inmate, sought a name change to 'Apokalypse God Allah' in Atoka County District Court; trial court stayed the case pending FBI/OSBI notice and a related federal action, then denied the change in July 2012.
Hemphill repeatedly attempted to move the matter forward while the court sought to terminate it; a hearing was scheduled but not completed due to transfer and notice issues.
In November 2012 Hemphill was moved to a different facility; the court intended to transfer the case but Hemphill did not request or accept transfer.
Hemphill filed a petition for mandamus and application to assume original jurisdiction with the Oklahoma Supreme Court in July 2013; the Court directed the district court to hear and determine the petition.
In December 2013 the district court again denied the name change, citing deficient notice and Hemphill's failure to appear; the local Twenty-Fifth Judicial District rules cited by the district court were not published and thus invalid per state law.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a prisoner in a civil name-change matter may testify by telephone or other electronic means, rather than appearing in person; the Court granted the application to assume jurisdiction and issued a writ directing telephonic testimony, while noting the name change itself could be denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May an incarcerated civil litigant testify by telephone or electronic means?	Hemphill contends he has a right to testify by telephone.	The district court may require in-person testimony or other authorized method; lack of notice may justify denial.	Yes; inmate testimony by telephone or electronic means is permissible.
Validity of local Twenty-Fifth Judicial District rules cited by the district court	Local rules must be published and in writing to be valid.	District rules were referenced but not shown as validly published.	Invalid and unenforceable local rules.
Whether notice defects foreclose the name-change action	Notice was properly provided; all statutory requirements met.	Notice issues exist and justify denial of the name change.	The primary issue remains notice, but the writ directs allowing testimony notwithstanding the merits of the change.
Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel telephonic testimony in this context	Mandamus should require telephonic appearance as a matter of right.	Mandamus is inappropriate where rights are not clearly established and remedies at law exist.	Application to assume jurisdiction granted; writ issued directing telephonic testimony.

Gaines v. Maynard, 808 P.2d 672 (1991 OK) (constitutional right of access to courts; related rights of inmates)
Harris v. State ex rel. Macy, 825 P.2d 1320 (1992 OK) (inmate access to civil actions; non-appearance in hearings)
Kordis v. Kordis, 37 P.3d 866 (2001 OK) (verification of rights in family and civil proceedings)
Kelley v. Kelley, 175 P.3d 400 (2007 OK) (mandamus elements and when writ issues)
Collier v. Reese, 222 P.3d 966 (2009 OK) (frivolous or malicious litigation; access to courts)
Harmon v. Harmon, 943 P.2d 599 (1997 OK) (inmate testimony arrangements in civil actions)
Johnson v. Scott, 702 P.2d 56 (1985 OK) (testimony by deposition or telephone under governing statutes)