John W. Perotti v. Diane Quinones
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10486
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- John Perotti, a federal prisoner, sued two prison employees (Quinones and Kelsheimer) under Bivens claiming they retaliated by delaying or denying his promotion from education orderly to law clerk because he filed grievances; a third defendant (Wheeler) was previously dismissed.
- The Seventh Circuit previously reinstated Perotti’s claims against Quinones and Kelsheimer and ordered a trial; on remand Perotti was initially represented but later proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew.
- Perotti was incarcerated in New Jersey (Fairton) at trial; he requested a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to be transported to Indiana for trial; the government opposed on cost, logistics, and security grounds.
- The district court denied the writ after applying the Stone balancing factors and ordered Perotti to participate and testify by two-way video conferencing instead; the court conducted a pretrial video conference to assess feasibility.
- The one-day jury trial allowed Perotti to testify by video; the court took steps to improve his view (adjusting monitors, seating witnesses in the well); connection briefly failed during instructions but was restored.
- The jury returned verdict for the defendants; the district court denied Perotti’s motion for a new trial, and Perotti appealed arguing the court abused its discretion and deprived him of a fair trial by forcing video testimony and not requiring others to appear remotely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a writ to transport Perotti for in-person trial | Perotti: court failed to properly balance Stone factors, underestimated prejudice from remote appearance, and over-weighted government security/cost claims | Govt: transport posed significant cost, logistical burden, and security risk; video conferencing is adequate alternative | Affirmed — court properly applied Stone factors and reasonably chose video over transport |
| Whether the court should have required all parties/defendants to appear by video once Perotti was remote | Perotti: defendants’ in-person presence unfairly advantaged them; court should have leveled the playing field | Defs: no need to appear remotely; they are not incarcerated and have right to appear in person; court could not compel them | Waived on appeal (not raised below); even if considered, court likely not required to force non-incarcerated parties to appear remotely |
| Whether Perotti was denied a fair trial by testifying via video | Perotti: limited view (couldn't see jurors, judge at times) impaired ability to assess and react, harming credibility assessment | Court: technology limitations existed but Perotti could be seen/heard; judge mitigated issues; case was simple and damages minor | Affirmed — no abusive discretion; limitations did not meaningfully prejudice Perotti |
| Proper legal framework for deciding prisoner in-court presence when video is available | Perotti: advances in tech shouldn’t displace the need for in-person presence when credibility central | Govt/District Court: Stone balancing test controls; video is a modern, viable alternative considered within Stone | Court: Stone factors govern; video conferencing is a relevant means to satisfy factor 8 (interest in in-person testimony) and may justify denying transport when balanced against risks/costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730 (7th Cir. 1976) (sets out balancing factors for ordering prisoner transported to testify)
- Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2005) (applied Stone and upheld use of videoconferencing for incarcerated plaintiff)
- Barnes v. Black, 544 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2008) (recognizes costs and dangers of transporting prisoners to distant courts)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (establishes private right of action for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Jones v. Hamelman, 869 F.2d 1023 (7th Cir. 1989) (upholds discretionary use of videoconferencing for incarcerated plaintiff)