Isabella Killmer Advocates for Fairness: A Call for Reconsideration in Judicial Orders

You’d think that when someone is fighting for their basic human rights — like proper treatment and fair hearings — they’d at least get to show up and speak for themselves, right? Well, welcome to the wild world of prison bureaucracy, where even that’s not guaranteed.

Recently, I filed a Motion to Reconsider after the court flat-out denied my request to have my husband, Joseph Killmer, transported from Anamosa State Penitentiary for our scheduled hearing. Why? Because apparently, transporting an inmate for a civil case is “not required by law.”

Say what now?

Here we are, in 2025, dealing with constitutional claims about prison conditions, retaliation, and medical neglect — and the court says transporting Joseph to the hearing isn’t necessary. I mean, how’s he supposed to fully participate, review evidence, and present his side of the story when he’s locked away hundreds of miles from the courtroom?

The law says otherwise.

The U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal rulings have made it crystal clear that inmates retain meaningful access to the courts, even while incarcerated (see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)). Denying Joseph transport essentially silences his voice.

So, I had to push back.

Our motion explains that Joseph is no ordinary defendant in a criminal trial — he’s a civil plaintiff challenging the prison system’s treatment of him. This means he deserves every chance to be heard in person, not just over a phone call or a monitor.

We asked for alternatives, too — a private, real-time video appearance, full access to legal materials during the hearing, and the ability for Joseph and me to communicate privately during proceedings. Because let’s be honest: a monitored phone call just won’t cut it when you’re fighting for your freedom and your health.

Filing this motion was frustrating but necessary. The fight for justice doesn’t stop just because someone is behind bars. It only gets harder.

So here’s the takeaway: If you’re fighting for someone locked up, don’t let the system tell you silence is the only option. Keep pushing. Keep filing motions. Keep demanding a seat at the table — or in Joseph’s case, a chance to actually walk into the courtroom.

Because justice denied isn’t justice at all.

Since filing the motion to reconsider the denial of Joseph’s transport, I have also submitted a second motion seeking the Court’s authorization for a private, pre-hearing legal conference between Joseph and me.

Because we are both co-plaintiffs representing ourselves without lawyers, effective coordination is crucial. Unfortunately, all our communication is currently monitored, delayed, or severely limited, with no possibility for private legal consultation.

This second motion asks the Court to allow us a one-hour private legal meeting the day before the hearing, held in a secure legal setting such as the attorney visitation area at Anamosa. This is essential to:

• Review exhibits

• Clarify arguments

• Strategize for the hearing

We assert this private meeting is necessary to protect our constitutional rights to due process and meaningful access to the courts. Without it, our ability to effectively present the case is seriously impaired.

This ongoing legal battle is about much more than just paperwork. It’s about fighting for a fair chance to be heard, for respect, and for justice — even when the odds and system are stacked against us.