Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01328/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JU 211 0 

I 

CHARLES ELLIOT BRACK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

W. L. KAUTZKY; CAROL PERKO, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1328 

(D.C. No. 88-Z-339) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Appellant C. Elliott Brack originally filed a ~ se 

complaint in March 1988 against W. L. Kautzky, Executive Director 

of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and numerous other 

Colorado corrections officials alleging various violations of his 

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Colorado law. He sought a 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 1 
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages. In 

particular Brack alleged cruel and unusual punishment in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment, i.e., deliberate indifference to his 

safety during his parole in Colorado when corrections officials 

knew his life was endangered there as a result of his prior role 

as an informant. He also alleged failure "to protect Plaintiff as 

a witness according to Colorado law" and deprivation of property 

without due process. In a separate count, he alleged intentional 

infliction of emotional distress and retaliation by certain 

corrections officials for previous exercise of his right of access 

to the courts. 

A federal magistrate recommended dismissal of the complaint, 

primarily on the grounds that the named defendants were immune 

from suit because they had not been implicated in any way in the 

alleged wrongdoings and because, in any case, Brack had not 

alleged anything other than negligent supervision. Brack 

responded by stating, among other things, that he meant to name 

Kautzky in his official capacity as director of the Department of 

Corrections and stating that the DOC "either failed to establish 

policy or regulation regarding the protection of government 

informants and protected witnesses or failed to follow and/or 

enforce such policy or regulation.'' R. Vol. 1, Tab 4 at 6. The 

district court took no immediate action on the magistrate's 

recommendations. 

Ten months later, 

Injunction, attempting 

requirement that he be 

Brack filed a Motion for Preliminary 

to protect his physical safety by a 

placed in an out-of-state correctional 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 2 
facility in connection with a repeat criminal offense to which he 

had pled guilty. Eleven days later he filed an amended complaint 

naming Kautzky and Carol Perko, the Colorado corrections official 

in charge of correctional transfers under the Interstate Compact, 

as defendants and seeking a permanent injunction requiring 

defendants to employ procedures for his safety in connection with 

his anticipated incarceration on the new criminal charge. His 

amended complaint apparently released all those defendants named 

in the original complaint with the exception of Kautzky. See R. 

Vol. 1 at Tab 6. 

The basis for Brack's fears was his role as an informant for 

the Colorado Bureau of Investigation from October 1984 through 

February 1985. His role apparently resulted in a mobster's 

incarceration in Colorado correctional facilities. After Brack's 

February 1985 burglary conviction, he was first given protective 

status in a Colorado jail and then allowed to serve the balance of 

his prison term in correctional facilities in Iowa. Despite plans 

to allow him to serve his parole in Iowa, he was paroled to 

Colorado in 1986 for reasons Brack does not make clear. After 

pleading guilty to a subsequent burglary charge, but prior to 

judgment and sentencing, he asked Colorado corrections officials 

to assure him of an out-of-state placement in which to serve his 

anticipated prison term. Perko, who supervised interstate 

correctional transfers, responded on behalf of Kautzky and herself 

that until Brack was received by the Department of Corrections for 

evaluation and assignment, it 

decision as to his placement 

3 

would be premature to make a 

but that Brack's safety concerns 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 3 
would be taken into consideration. Apparently unsatisfied with 

this response, Brack filed the amended complaint referred to 

above, naming Perko and Kautzky as co-defendants. He pressed only 

his claims of cruel and unusual punishment (deliberate 

indifference to his safety), denial of due process, and denial of 

equal protection of the law through Colorado's failure to accord 

him the statutory protection afforded to (and allegedly given to) 

other informants. He appears to have dropped prior allegations of 

retaliation for prior exercise of his right to access the courts 

and of intentional infliction of emotional distress. He sought 

injunctive relief, i.e., alternative forms of protective custody 

and out-of-state placement for the burglary charge to which he had 

pled guilty, and "any other relief" to which he might be entitled. 

R. Vol. 1, Tab 6 at 13. 

A month later, and prior to the magistrate's recommendations 

on the amended complaint, the state court sentenced Brack to 

twenty years in prison on the second degree burglary charge. The 

state court responded to Brack's fears by specifying in the 

judgment and sentence that, after processing in the Canon City 

Diagnostic Center under the direct supervision of the criminal 

investigator for the Department of Corrections, Brack be placed in 

protective custody at the Centennial Facility for as short a time 

as was necessary to make arrangements to transfer 

corrections facility in the state of Washington. 

him to a 

If such 

arrangements could not be made, other arrangements for an out-ofstate placement were to be substituted. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 4 
• 

Both the federal magistrate and the district court judge 

found that the state court judgment and sentence were responsive 

to plaintiff's fears. Upon recommendation of the magistrate, the 

district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and 

dismissed the amended complaint. The district court went further 

and dismissed the Section 1983 action with prejudice. Brack 

appealed, and the defendants declined to file briefs in response 

to Brack's ~ se appeal. 

Brack's appeal is meritless. Given the conditions attached 

by the state court to the locations in which he could serve his 

sentence for second degree burglary, Brack did not demonstrate the 

likelihood of irreparable injury required to grant a motion for 

preliminary injunction, nor that he had an inadequate remedy at 

law. Although Brack, in his objections to the magistrate's 

recommendations, pointed out that the recommendations did not 

address Colorado's failure to provide him with protection on 

parole prior to his commission of a repeat offense, he nonetheless 

stated: "Upon defendants' full compliance with the Order of the 

State court, [i.e. placement in out-of-state correctional 

facilities] ... , Plaintiff would have no objection to dismissal 

of this instant action." R. Vol. I at Tab 8. By the time of the 

district court's dismissal with prejudice, the defendants had 

complied with the order, and plaintiff was no longer being held in 

Colorado correctional facilities but was an inmate in Clallam Bay, 

Washington. 

Brack now asserts on appeal that the Colorado Department of 

Corrections is no longer complying with the state 

5 

court's 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 5 
sentencing order. He gives his address as Canon City, Colorado, 

and he notes that his personal effects and legal files are still 

in Washington state. This unexplained allegation of noncompliance 

does not invalidate the district court's order of dismissal at the 

time it was made. If plaintiff has a new cause of action, he is 

free to file a new claim in a court of competent jurisdiction, but 

the lower court's order of dismissal with prejudice is affirmed 

with respect to this claim. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

6 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1328 Document: 010110036915 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 6