Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05108/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05108-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILL D 

United States Court of APJ,i3al, Tenth Circuit 

MARCUS R. MILLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

STANLEY GLANZ, Sheriff; BOB BATES, 

Deputy Sheriff; DAN CHERRY, Captain; 

LANCE RAMSEY, Deputy Sheriff; JERRY 

BAGBY, Deputy Sheriff; GEORGE ROGERS, 

Deputy Sheriff; DEWAYNE HARRIS, Deputy 

Sheriff; DON P. HOLYFIELD, Director; 

CLENT DEDEK, Commissioner; JOHN DOE, 

Investigator; DR. BARNES; JOHN DOE, 

Deputy Sheriff; JANE DOE, Nurse #1; 

JANE DOE, Nurse #2; JOHNNY F. DIRCK, 

Director of Council on Law Enforcement 

Education & Training, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MARl 9 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-5108 

(D.C. No. 90 - C-0526 -B) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, sitting by 

* 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: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 1 
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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Marcus R. Miller appeals the district court's order 

granting summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

claim of use of excessive force. On appeal plaintiff argues that 

the district court erred in granting summary judgment to 

defendants on plaintiff's excessive force claim based on 

collateral estoppel, and that the court erred in refusing to 

appoint counsel for plaintiff. 

Plaintiff filed his civil rights complaint against defendants 

claiming that while incarcerated in the Tulsa City-County Jail, he 

was assaulted and beaten by Deputy Sheriffs Ramsey, Bates, and 

Bagby. In an order filed January 29, 1991, the district court 

dismissed several of plaintiff's claims as barred by collateral 

estoppel and dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims as failing to 

state a claim. On appeal, this court reversed the district 

court's dismissal of plaintiff's excessive force claim, affirmed 

the court's dismissal of plaintiff's remaining federal claims, and 

remanded for further proceedings. See Miller v. Glanz, 948 F . 2d 

1562, 1572 (10th Cir. 1991). 

This court directed the district court to consider the 

collateral estoppel effect of plaintiff' s state criminal 

conviction on the second of two of plaintiff's allegations of the 

use of excessive force. Id. at 1567 . On remand the district 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 2 
court converted defendants' motion to dismiss to a motion for 

summary judgment in order to consider materials outside the 

pleadings. In its order of May 6, 1992, the district court 

concluded that plaintiff's excessive force claim was barred by 

collateral estoppel and granted the defendants summary judgment. 

Plaintiff returns to this court to appeal this decision. We 

affirm. 

As stated, this action arises out of an incident in the Tulsa 

City-County Jail on December 13, 1989 . Plaintiff was incarcerated 

in the jail awaiting trial on charges of possession of a 

controlled drug and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. 

Apparently, plaintiff left the jail law library without permission 

in contravention of jail rules. Plaintiff became belligerent when 

Deputy Ramsey told him to return to the library. When Deputy 

Ramsey informed plaintiff that his law library privileges were 

revoked for the day and told him to place his hands behind his 

back for handcuffing and return to his cell, an altercation took 

place which resulted in facial abrasions to Deputy Ramsey . 

After the i nitial scuffle, during which Deputy Ramsey claims 

that plaintiff struck him, it appears that Deputy Ramsey got 

plaintiff into a holding cell and called for help from other 

deputies. Deputy Bates and Deputy Bagby answered the call, and 

all three officers went into the holding cell to handcuff 

plaintiff. The defendants contend that plaintiff was hostile and 

combative, and therefore a certain amount of force was necessary 

in order to subdue him. Deputy Bagby claims that, during this 

second altercati on, plaintiff struck him, knocking off his 

3 

~ ---- ---

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 3 
glasses. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that the officers 

hit, kicked, and jumped on him, for no reason. 

Plaintiff was subsequently charged with assault and battery 

on an officer. Following a jury trial, plaintiff was found guilty 

and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Plaintiff filed this 

civil rights action charging defendants with excessive force, 

deliberate indifference to medical needs, false imprisonment, 

malicious prosecution, cruel and unusual punishment, biased 

investigations, discriminatory acts to prolong incarceration, 

negligent failure to train and certify deputies, and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. In this second appeal, we 

consider only the district court's grant of summary judgment to 

defendants on the excessive force claim as it relates to the 

deputies actions after plaintiff was placed in the holding cell . 

Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment 

to defendants involves the same standard employed by the district 

court under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Applied Genetics Int'l. Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec .• Inc., 912 

F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). "Summary judgment is 

appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 

Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). 

The question whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an 

issue in a civil action is reviewed de novo. Hubbert v. City of 

Moore, 923 F.2d 769, 772 (10th Cir. 1991). 

The Supreme Court has held that issues decided in state 

criminal proceedings are collaterally precluded from relitigation 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 4 
in subsequent§ 1983 civil suits. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 

103-04 (1980). The issue must have been determined in the 

previous criminal litigation "by a valid final judgment to which 

such determination was essential." Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC. Inc . , 

917 F.2d 1507, 1520 (10th Cir. 1990) . In determining whether a 

prior state court judgment precludes subsequent litigation of an 

issue, the court must apply state collateral estoppel rules. 

Haring v. Prosise, 462 U. S . 306, 314 (1983); Hubbert , 923 F . 2d at 

772 -73. 

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that collateral estoppel 

applies to all issues decided in a prior criminal proceeding which 

are raised in subsequent civil litigation. Lee v . Knight, 771 

P.2d 1003, 1006 (Okla. 1989). The Oklahoma court, looking to the 

Seventh Circuit for its collateral estoppel standards, stated: 

"[T]he issue sought to be precluded must be the same as 

that involved in the prior judicial proceeding; the 

issue was litigated in the prior action; the issue was 

in fact actually determined in the prior proceeding; and 

the determination of that issue was necessary to support 

the judgment in the prior proceeding." 

Adamson v . Dayton Hudson Corp . , 774 P . 2d 478, 480 (Okla . Ct. App. 

1989) (quoting Guenther v. Holmgreen, 738 F . 2d 879, 884 (7th Cir. 

1984 ) , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1212 (1985)). 

Defendants contend that plaintiff had a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate the excessive force question at the time 

of his criminal trial . See Hubbert, 923 F . 2d at 773. The 

district court agreed, concluding that the incidents were treated 

as one continuous event at the time of plaintiff's criminal trial, 

and that evidence was presented to the jury as to both sides' 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 5 
version of the series of events, both in the hallway, and in the 

holding cell. Our review of the transcript of plaintiff's 

criminal trial supports this conclusion. Evidence and testimony 

was presented as to all events from the point that plaintiff left 

the law library, through his return to his cell and his follow-up 

medical care. 

In assessing a claim of excessive force in an emergency 

situation threatening the safety of prison staff or other inmates, 

the Supreme Court's standard is a determination of whether the 

prisoner was subjected to malicious and sadistic conduct. Whitley 

v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). In a nonemergency 

situation, the Court has held that an Eighth Amendment "deliberate 

indifference" standard should be applied. Wilson v. Seiter, 111 

S. Ct. 2321, 2326 (1991). In remanding the issue of excessive 

force, this court determined that plaintiff's complaint 

sufficiently stated a claim for excessive force under either the 

Whitley standard or the deliberate indifference standard. On 

remand, we directed the district court to determine whether 

plaintiff continued to pose a threat to the jail personnel and 

environment after he was placed in the holding cell. Miller, 948 

F.2d at 1567. 

Our review of the transcript convinces us that the facts, as 

presented to the jury during plaintiff's criminal trial, indicate 

that the use of reasonable force was necessary in order to 

restrain plaintiff and gain his compliance with jail directives. 

In determining whether plaintiff's assault on the deputies was in 

self defense, the jury had to make a determination regarding 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 6 
whether the deputies' actions were justified. The incident was 

presented as one continuous string of events. Consequently, the 

district court was correct in detennining that plaintiff received 

a full and fair opportunity to litigate the excessive force issue 

at the time of his criminal trial. 

Plaintiff's attempt to convince the jury that his actions 

were in self defense, both because it was not normal jail policy 

to handcuff a prisoner behind his back and because of the actions 

of the deputies, failed. The jury did not accept plaintiff' s 

defense, but concluded that plaintiff was the aggressor and that 

the deputies' actions were warranted. Plaintiff's excessive force 

claim, as to the events in the holding cell, was presented to, and 

decided by, the jury in reaching its guilty verdict. Pursuant to 

Oklahoma's collateral estoppel rules, plaintiff's§ 1983 excessive 

force claim is precluded. 

Plaintiff's state law claims can only survive if his related 

federal claim is sufficient to support federal jurisdiction. See 

Plott v. Griffiths, 938 F.2d 164, 166-67 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Consequently, the district court was correct in dismissing his 

state law claims in light of its detennination that his federal 

claim was estopped. As to plaintiff's assertion that the district 

court erred in denying him appointed counsel, we hold that, 

because plaintiff does not have a colorable claim, the district 

court's denial of counsel was within its sound discretion. ~ 

Blankenship v . Meachum, 840 F . 2d 741, 743 (10th Cir. 1988). 

7 

_::_ ______ _ 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 7 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

District Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-5108 Document: 010110191184 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 8