Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Feagin v. Stokes
Citations: 837 So. 2d 857; 2002 WL 399213Docket: 2001007
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; March 14, 2002; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Michael E. Feagin appealed a judgment dismissing his breach of contract complaint against bail bondsman Rickey Stokes and his agent Andrew Garner. Feagin, incarcerated on charges in Pike and Coffee Counties, claimed he had an agreement with Stokes to post bail totaling $34,600, using his 1991 Ford Explorer Sport as collateral. Stokes allegedly took the vehicle from Feagin's wife but failed to post the bonds, leading to Feagin's continued incarceration and the vehicle's retention. Feagin sought $9,500, the vehicle's worth, in his lawsuit. After serving interrogatories and requests for admissions, Feagin was unable to attend a motions hearing due to incarceration, resulting in the dismissal of his complaint for failure to prosecute. He subsequently mailed a postjudgment motion, which was incorrectly docketed, rendering it untimely under Rule 59. The trial court later recognized the clerical error and granted Feagin's motion, restoring his case to the active docket and scheduling a trial. Feagin also requested a transfer to the courthouse for trial, which was denied, and he continued to pursue additional discovery prior to the trial date. The court ultimately reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 9 and 12, 2001, Feagin served requests for interrogatories and admissions, respectively. On May 10, 2001, he filed a request to take a deposition of a confined person under Rule 31, Ala. R. Civ. P. He also filed a motion for summary judgment on May 14, 2001, which included a narrative fact summary, legal citations, and sworn affidavits regarding the bail bond agreement between him and Stokes. However, the supporting deposition was notarized but lacked court approval as required by Rule 31(a). The trial court noted that all pending motions would be addressed in a hearing scheduled for May 31, 2001. Subsequently, the court dismissed the case with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to appear or prosecute. On June 11, 2001, Feagin filed a Rule 59 motion arguing that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion since he had sought to secure his presence for trial and obtain leave to preserve his testimony. The court denied this motion on June 13, 2001. Feagin appealed on June 29, 2001, claiming the dismissal was unjust. The appellate court noted that while dismissals for failure to prosecute are within the trial court's discretion, they can be reversed if there is an abuse of that discretion. It cited prior rulings indicating that incarcerated individuals are not entitled to be transported for civil suits unrelated to their confinement, but they may use depositions to present evidence. The court found that Feagin had attempted to comply with procedural rules and that his motion to preserve testimony was not considered by the trial court. Thus, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.