Winston O. Lloyd v. H.S. McKendree Etc., Winston O. Lloyd v. Henry Hines, Etc., 749 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Winston O. Lloyd v. H.S. McKendree Etc., Winston O. Lloyd v. Henry Hines, Etc., 749 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carter Joe Tyree v. John Doe 1, Correctional Officer, South Dakota Department of Corrections, in his individual capacity; and John Doe 2, Correctional Officer, South Dakota Department of Corrections, in his individual capacity (sdd, 2026-06-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#18 28 U.S.C. § 1825 cited 1× in this case · 71 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carter Joe Tyree v. John Doe 1, Correctional Officer, South Dakota Department of Corrections, in his individual capacity; and John Doe 2, Correctional Officer, South Dakota Department of Corrections, in his individual capacity
D.S.D. · 2026 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Mar. 25, 2021) (citing Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kitchen v. Developmental Services of Nebraska, Inc.
D. Neb. · 2022 · confidence medium
Mo. Nov. 18, 2009) (citing Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Novascone v. Danaher
D. Neb. · 2021 · confidence medium
Mo. Nov. 18, 2009) (citing Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir.1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Teen v. Polan
E.D. Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
Mo. Nov. 18, 2009) (citing Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Willie Frank Wright, Jr. v. Officer Langford
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that, because the power to subpoena witnesses for an indigent civil litigant is discretionary, “the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied [a civil rights litigant’s] ... subpoena request” where the litigant had not tendered the fee for the witness). *778 Mr. Wright claims that Dr. Harrison improperly withheld pretrial notice of the details of the trial testimony of Nurse Hargroven with respect to her decision to move up the date on which Mr. Wright was scheduled to receive the x-ray on his wrist.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Atherton v. Brooks
D.C. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir.1993); Means, supra, 741 F.2d at 1057; Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir.1985); McNeil, supra, 831 F.2d at 1373 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. Energy Gathering, Inc., John Fox, Movant-Appellant
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 , 106 S.Ct. 1975 , 90 L.Ed.2d 659 (1986); Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir.1985); Estep v. United States, 251 F.2d 579, 580 (5th Cir.1958). 26 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Energy Gathering, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
We have said that the inherent power 25 See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1975 (1986); Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985); Estep v. United States, 251 F.2d 579, 580 (5th Cir. 1958). 26 See In re Letter Rogatory, 523 F.2d 562, 563 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 165, 173 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 92 S.Ct. 2049 (1972); United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958); 8 Wright & Miller, supra, § 2083, at 351. 27 See Koskotas v. Roche, 931 F.2d 169, 175 (1st Cir. 1991); Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hodge v. Prince (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. Tex. · 1990 · confidence medium
McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 706 (11th Cir.1985). 2 . 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (c): The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.
cited Cited as authority (rule) William McNeil v. Mary A. Lowney
7th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1975 , 90 L.Ed.2d 659 (1986); Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Windell Weaver v. William Danforth, et al.
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985) (noting a district court is only required to issue subpoenas for indigent parties in criminal cases and in civil habeas cases).
discussed Cited "see" Griffin v. Google
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985) (noting a district court is only required to issue subpoenas for indigent parties in criminal cases and in civil habeas cases).
discussed Cited "see" Glenn C. Smith v. Fla. Dept. of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (c), which in 1996 was redesignated as § 1915(d), does not abrogate the requirement that fees must be tendered before service of the subpoena); Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Louis E. Aiello, Also Known as Luigi Aiello v. Gary R. McCaughtry
7th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir.1985). 3 Williams, 10 F.3d at 565; Means, 741 F.2d 1053 , 1062-63 (arguing that § 1915(a), (c) permit court to authorize prepayment of fees) (per Lay, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Hubbard, 698 F.2d at 291-94 (per Swygert, J., dissenting) 4 Lloyd, 749 F.2d at 706 -07 (citing § 1915(a) as source of district court's discretion to advance fees).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lee v. Durbin
E.D. Mo. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Wilmas v. Renshaw
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marcus v. Howard
W.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“This power authorizes the Court to review indigent parties’ subpoena duces tecum before service and to order the Marshals Service to reject service requests in certain circumstances.” Jackson, 1992 WL 404537 , at *5; see also Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir. 1985); Manning v. Lockhart, 623 F.2d 536, 539 (8th Cir. 1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Winston O. LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H.S. McKENDREE, Etc., Defendant-Appellee; Winston O. LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry HINES, Etc., Defendant-Appellee
84-3073.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 3, 1985.
749 F.2d 705
Gayle S. Swedmark, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Godbold, Krav-Itch, Hatchett.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal in two consolidated Sec. 1983 cases.

The district court did not err in finding that petitioner was arrested with probable cause. The testimony was in conflict, and the court did not believe petitioner’s witnesses.

Nor did the court err in finding that petitioner was not placed in administrative confinement for punitive reasons but for a legitimate purpose of preventing him from intimidating a witness who was to testify in a matter involving petitioner.

The evidence supports findings that petitioner was not denied medical care, that conditions of confinement were not unconstitutional, and that petitioner had reasonable access to the courts.

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely request for a jury trial.

The district court refused to subpoena petitioner’s former attorney to testify without tender of fees. The court ruled that a witness in a civil case must be tendered fees before service of the subpoena is complete and that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c), which provides for proceedings in forma pauperis, does not abrogate this requirement. Under Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 45(c) service of a subpoena in a civil case must include the tendering of fees unless the subpoena is issued on behalf of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) specifies that a court “may authorize the commencement ... of any suit ... without prepayment of fees and costs[*707] ....” (emphasis added). Likewise, while the Fifth Circuit has suggested that district courts have either the implied or inherent power to subpoena witnesses for an indigent civil litigant, this power is discretionary. Estep v. U.S., 251 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1958).

The district court is required to issue subpoenas for indigent parties only in criminal proceedings, see Fed.R.Crim.Pr. 17(b), and in civil proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 1825. See also S.REP. NO. 615, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), reprinted in 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2901; Hudson v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, 516 F.Supp. 708 (S.D.Ala.1981); Dortly v. Bailey, 431 F.Supp. 247 (M.D.Fla.1977). Since this is not such a case, it was within the district court’s discretion to deny the subpoena request. Lloyd has shown no abuse of this discretion. Estep, 251 F.2d at 582.

AFFIRMED.