Baker v. State of Texas ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41263
Summary Calendar
STEVE ALAN BAKER et al.,
Plaintiffs,
STEVE ALAN BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS; TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
COMPANY DEPARTMENTS; UT MEDICAL BRANCH; MANAGED HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:97-CV-692
--------------------
October 27, 1999
Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court ordered that Steve Alan Baker’s (#632428)
civil rights action be held in abeyance because Baker became mute
and could not give testimony during hearings held pursuant to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-41263
-2-
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Baker has
appealed. The district court’s order is an appealable
interlocutory order under the collateral-order doctrine. See
Johnson v. State of Texas, 878 F.2d 904, 905-06 (5th Cir. 1989).
We review the district court’s order, which adopted the
findings and conclusions contained in the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, for an abuse of
discretion. See id. at 906. Although the magistrate judge noted
that administrative closure is appropriate “if circumstances
prevent a lawsuit from proceeding” and “only ‘as a last resort
after all other alternatives . . . have been rejected,’” see
Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458, 461 n.3
(5th Cir. 1998), she did not explain why the lawsuit cannot
proceed because of Baker’s muteness and did not expressly
consider and reject other alternatives.
The Spears procedure is itself an alternative to requiring
responses to written questions. See Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600,
602 (5th Cir. 1996). Although the magistrate judge stated that
she was “unable to determine whether Plaintiff even had stated a
cause of action, which it why this Court attempted to conduct a
Spears hearing,” she did not explain how the complaint is
inadequate and why those inadequacies could not be fleshed out
through written interrogatories. The district court’s order is
VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.