Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01171/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Courr of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'r'pn+ r,~,..,:~ 

RONALD A. GILLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STANLEY A. BRINKLEY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT JAN 2 - 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1171 

(D.C. No. 85-Z-829) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Befor e MCKAY, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has de termined 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This was an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of 

pr o cess tried to the court. The court entered a judgment for the 

defendant. The only issue on appeal is whether the court was 

*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: 89-1171 Document: 01019958606 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
clearly erroneous or, in other words, whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual determinations. 

This case grew out of a financial dispute involving multiple 

parti es and multiple corporations. Plaintiff was the primary 

officer and moving force in the multiple corporations. Defendant 

was t he attorney for a group of shareholders in one of the corporations which came to financial disaster. The record supports the 

trial court's finding that the defendant, acting at the request of 

his clients, initiated criminal prosecution against the plaintiff. 

Sometime after initiation of the criminal prosecution, an attorney 

representing other corporations owned or directed by the plaintiff 

initiated negotiations with the defendant, acting on behalf of his 

clients, in an effort to settle the financial dispute which led 

defendant's clients to conclude that plaintiff was guilty of fraud 

in the formation of the failed corporation. It also supports the 

conclusion that the attorney was representing corporate interests, 

not the plaintiff personally. The record further supports that 

concerns arose as to whether pursuing negotiations at the same 

time as prosecuting a criminal complaint would be a violation of 

law. The defendant took all of that information, including the 

financial negotiations, to a judge who, under Colorado law, 

directed that the prosecution go forward. The record supports the 

trial court's conclusion that defendant made a full disclosure of 

all the relevant facts to the trial judge, who found probable 

cause to proceed with the prosecution. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1171 Document: 01019958606 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2 
Plaintiff was arrested; and after a preliminary hearing, the 

trial court directed that the prosecution go forward. At the end 

o f the go vernment's case, the prosecution was dismissed. The 

re co rd further supports the trial court's conclusion that the 

defendant was at all times acting in a representative capacity, 

was no t paid for his services in bringing the prosecution, and was 

no t a cting either for gain or for any malice. The record supports 

the conclusion of three different judges, including the trial 

judge in this case, that there was clearly probable cause to bring 

the p rosecution out of which this action arose. 

The relevant Colorado law governing plaintiff's burden of 

proof in a malicious prosecution case requi r es the plaintiff to 

prove , in addition to other elements, that there was no probable 

cause for the criminal prosecution and that the defendant was 

motivated by malice in bringing the criminal proceeding. While 

based o n plaintiff's evidence, standing by itself, the trial court 

could perhaps have reached a different conclusion, there is 

clearl y sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial 

cou r t 's conclusion that there was probable cause for the criminal 

prosecution and that the defendant was not himself motivated by 

malice in bringing the criminal proceedings. 

The choices as to credibil i ty a nd the weig ht of evidence 

belong i n the first instance to the t r i al court . After examining 

the b riefs and the records in this case, we cannot say that the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1171 Document: 01019958606 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 3 
., 

tria l judge's decision upon the disputed evidence was clearly 

erroneous or lacks support in the record. 

In order to prove an abuse of process case, the plaintiff 

must prove, among other things, that there were willful actions by 

the defendant in the use of process which were not proper in the 

regular conduct of the proceedings. The trial court found that 

the defendant did not proceed with any improper or ulterior purpose in the use of the criminal proceedings which he initiated on 

behalf of his clients. While there was testimony which suggested 

the possibility that someone may have used the criminal process in 

order to facilitate the collection of a civil debt, there was specific testimony from a prosecutor, the defendant, and other circumstantial evidence suggesting that this defendant was not guilty 

of such an improper or ulterior purpose in playing the part he 

played in this complicated dispute. 

Because the record evidence supports the trial court's conclusion, we must AFFIRM. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1171 Document: 01019958606 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 4