Encalade v. Sylvia Biggs ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LONNIE CLEMONT ENCALADE * CIVIL ACTION VERSUS * NO. 23-3283 25TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, ET AL. * SECTION “M” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Before me is Plaintiff Lonnie Clemont Encalade’s Motion for Televised Trial of his pro se and in forma pauperis § 1983 case regarding alleged due process violations by various public officials, entities, and family members. ECF No. 13. Initially, this motion is premature pending review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915 (e). Notwithstanding prematurity, the relief requested is unavailable under this Court’s local rules and national judiciary policy. Indeed, the Judicial Conference has consistently reaffirmed its opposition to permitting district court proceedings to be broadcasted, televised, recorded, or photographed for the purpose of public dissemination.1 The Judicial Conference permits2 district courts to authorize broadcasting proceedings in limited circumstances: A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: 1) for the presentation of evidence; 2) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings; 1 See, e.g., Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, March 8-9, 1962, p. 10; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, September 20, 1994, p. 45, at http://www.uscourts.gov/file/2120/download; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, March 12, 1996, p. 17, at http://www.uscourts.gov/file/2119/download. 2 “While the policy conclusions of the Judicial Conference may not be binding on lower courts, they are at the very least entitled to respectful consideration.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 194 (2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 3) for security purposes; 4) for other purposes of judicial administration; 5) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or 6) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference.” Moreover, this Court’s Local Rules expressly prohibit broadcasting of trial: The audio-recording, video-recording, taking of photographs, radio or television broadcasting, or electronic transmission of events from the courtroom or its environs is prohibited during the progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session. Judicial proceedings, in whole or in part, may not be recorded, broadcast or transmitted by any means, including still or moving photography or any type of sound recording. E.D. La. L.R. 83.3.9. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Televised Trial (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of September, 2023. DON 7 Mubyy CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 United States Courts, About Federal Courts: History of Cameras in Courts (last visited September 12, 2023), available at https:/(www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras- courts.