Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04152/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04152-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L ........ i.) ~ 

U ·ted States C-O~rt(!f Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT m Tenth Crrcu1t 

MAX SANDOVAL , 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY W. DELAND, DAVID R. FRANCHINA, 

SCOTT MCCALLISTER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4152 

(D.C. No . 89-CV-730-S) 

(D. Utah) 

Befo re SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appell ate 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 . The case is therefore o rdered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not b e cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circui t, 

except f or purposes o f establishing the doctrines of the law of 

t h e case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Ci r . R. 

36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-4152 Document: 010110212820 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff is a "member of the general public" who sought to 

personally witness an execution. He brought this civil rights 

suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his First and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights were violated because defendants permitted only 

"certified media members" to view executions. Aplt. App. at 2-4. 

The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment 

and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. 

Plaintiff appeals and we affirm. 

In his motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiff alleged 

that Utah Code Ann. § 77-19-11 and its pertinent regulations, 

which permit a limited number of selected commercial media 

representatives to view executions, are unconstitutional because 

they exclude the public from witnessing executions. Aplt. App. at 

29-30. In his report and recommendation which was adopted by the 

district court, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff's 

constitutional rights were not violated. Id. at 23. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) the district court erred 

when it made the factual determination that plaintiff served no 

media function; (2) corrections officials denied plaintiff's right 

to equal protection pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment when they 

excluded him from consideration as a witness at the execution; and 

(3 ) corrections officials violated the First Amendment when t hey 

defined 11 press 11 and 11media 11 in a manner that excluded plaintiff. 

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same legal standard used by the district c ourt under 

Fed. R. Civ . P. 56 (c). Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v . First 

Affiliate d Sec ., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-4152 Document: 010110212820 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 2 
"Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute 

over a material fact and the moving party is entitled t o judgment 

as a matter of law." Russill o v. Scarborough, 935 F . 2d 1167, 1170 

(10th Cir. 1991 ). We view the record in the light most favo rable 

to the party opposing summary judgment. Deepwater Invs .• Ltd . v. 

Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) . 

Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district court erred in 

determining he is not a member of the media and served no media 

function . Defendants counter that plaintiff only argued in t he 

district court that he is a member of the general public, not that 

h e is a member of the media. In his complaint, for example, 

plaintiff asserted that he is a "member of the general public" who 

wished to witness an execution . Aplt . App. at 2. He alleged 

that there is "invidious discrimination against members of the 

general public in favor of certain commercial media enterprises." 

Id. at 3. In his motion for partial summary judgment, plaint iff 

maintained he should be entitled to the same First Amendment 

rights accorded to the news media. See id. at 35. Likewise, in 

his reply memorandum in support of summary judgment, he again 

reit erated his argument t hat the "general public may not be denie d 

access to sources of information made available to the commercial 

media." Id . at 50. At the hearing before the magistrate judge , 

plaintiff testified that he is a member of the general public and 

did no t maintain that he performs any media function . Id. a t 

81 - 82 . 

As a general rule, appel late courts will not c onsider issues 

raise d for the first t ime on appeal. FDIC v. Daily. 973 F . 2d 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-4152 Document: 010110212820 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 3 
1525, 1530 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff presents no reason why we 

should grant an exception to the general rule, and we conclude no 

basis for an exception is present. See Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 

928 F.2d 966, 970 (10th Cir. 1991). We will therefore not 

consider plaintiff's first argument. 

After reviewing the briefs on appeal, the appendix, and the 

relevant case law, we conclude that plaintiff's other arguments 

are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the 

reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and 

recommendation filed July 10, 1992, and adopted by the district 

court in its order filed July 29, 1992. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

argument is DENIED. 

Plaintiff's motion for oral 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-4152 Document: 010110212820 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 4