Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04289/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04289-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COUR-T OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 19 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JOSEPH CURIALE, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

UINTAH COUNTY SHERIFF RICK 

HAWKINS, and CHIEF UINTAH 

COUNTY DEPUTY ROBERT 

V ANDERBUSSE, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-4289 

(D.C. No. 2:03-CV-1086 PGC) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

Joseph Curi ale, proceeding pro se and in form a pauperis, appeals from the 

district court's dismissal of his claims. He seeks injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging that Defendants, Uintah County Sheriff Rick Hawkins and Chief 

• 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is 

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and 

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and 

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 1
Deputy Robert Vanderbusse, violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Curiale claims that Defendants violated his civil rights by ( 1) framing 

him for unnamed actions and having him committed to a mental hospital in 1996 

and 1997 and (2) making threatening statements. He alleges that on 

December 15, 2003, Vanderbusse threatened him by saying, "Go in your house 

now or I'll take you in," Aplt. Br. at 3, and on October 9, 2003, Hawkins told him 

to "move out to Vernal City." Id. 

Mr. Curiale's suit was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended 

that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. The magistrate judge found that 

any claims relating to Mr. Curiale's 1996-97 commitment to the Utah State 

Mental Hospital were time-barred under Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(2) See 

Arnold v. Duchesne County, 26 F.3d 982, 985 (10th Cir. 1994); Mismash v. 

Murray City, 730 F .2d 1366, 1367 (10th Cir. 1984) ("[A]ll section 1983 claims 

brought in federal court in Utah are subject to the four-year limitations period 

provided in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25."). She also found that the alleged 

threats made by Defendants were "insufficient to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted." R. Vol. I, doc. 50 at 4. See Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 

827 (10th Cir. 1979) ("Verbal harassment or abuse [by law enforcement] ... is 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 2
not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983."). The 

district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and 

granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. 

II. DISCUSSION 

"We review de novo a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Allegations in the 

plaintiffs complaint are presumed true." Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 

(10th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). We also review de novo "the district 

court's application of the statute of limitations[.]" Van Tu v. Koster, 364 F.3d 

1196, 1198 (10th Cir. 2004). In applying this standard, "[w]e construe a prose 

litigant's pleadings liberally." Miller, 948 F.2d at 1565. 

On appeal Mr. Curiale restates the same claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, 

arguing that the magistrate judge was biased and unfair in recommending they be 

dismissed. We find no error in either the magistrate judge's application of the 

statute of limitations to the claims based on Mr. Curiale 's 1996-97 commitment or 

her recommendation to dismiss his claims that Defendants' statements violated his 

civil rights. These unfavorable rulings are insufficient to demonstrate judicial 

bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) ("[J]udicial rulings 

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion."). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 3
Mr. Curi ale also appeals the denial of his motions for appointment of 

counsel. "We review the denial of appointment of counsel in a civil case for an 

abuse of discretion." Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). 

"The burden is upon the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient 

merit to his claim to warrant the appointment of counsel." McCarthy v. 

Weinberg, 753 F .2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985). In determining whether to appoint 

counsel, the court should consider the following factors: "the merits of the 

litigant's claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's 

ability to present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the 

claims." Rucks, 57 F.3d at 979 (internal quotation marks omitted). The 

magistrate judge concluded "that (1) it is not clear yet whether [Mr. Curi ale] has 

asserted a colorable claim; (2) the issues involved are not complex; and (3) 

[Mr. Curiale] is able to adequately pursue this matter." R. Vol. I, doc. 31 at 2-3. 

We find no abuse of discretion in her denial of Mr. Curiale's motion to appoint 

counsel. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's 

November 17, 2004, Order and the magistrate judge's October 25, 2004, Report 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 4
and Recommendation, we AFFIRM. Any pending motions are DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-4289 Document: 010110642412 Date Filed: 05/19/2005 Page: 6