Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01163/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01163-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILL.0 

United St.ates Court of Appealf Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DECO 4 1992 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

THEODORE A. JONES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE E. THOMAS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 92-1163 

(D.C. No. 91-C-1259) 

(D . Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Clerk 

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(e); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Theodore A. Jones filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 contending defendant Dr. George E. Thomas, the Deputy 

*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: 92-1163 Document: 010110149259 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 1 
Coroner of the City and County of Denver, denied him due process 

and equal protection by filing an autopsy report with prosecutors 

which erroneously concluded Mr. Jones' wife died of strangulation. 

Plaintiff further contended because of that report he pled guilty 

to charges of reckless manslaughter and assault in the second 

degree in the death of Mrs. Jones. 

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge who ultimately 

recommended granting defendant's motion for summary judgment 

because the applicable statute of limitations had expired and 

because the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under 

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Following plaintiff's 

objection to the recommendation, the district court adopted the 

magistrate's recommendation and ordered entry of summary judgment 

dismissing the action. This appeal ensued, and we affirm. 

Plaintiff affirmatively claimed Dr. Thomas intentionally 

falsified his autopsy report by concluding Mrs. Jones had been 

strangled. Plaintiff asserted he had obtained a letter from 

another physician, Dr. Thomas Canfield, which called into question 

the conclusion reached by Dr. Thomas. 

Defendant countered with a motion for summary judgment to 

which were attached, among other things, the affidavits of Drs. 

Thomas and Canfield. Plaintiff produced no evidence to dispute 

the facts contained in those affidavits. 

In short, defendant's undisputed evidence is that Mrs. Jones' 

death was caused by asphyxiation resulting from trauma. Moreover, 

it is clear plaintiff has presented no evidence of expert 

disagreement over that conclusion. 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-1163 Document: 010110149259 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 2 
In his affidavit, Dr. Canfield stated, "At no time did I 

indicate to [plaintiff's state court counsel] or Mr. Jones that I 

disagreed with Dr. Thomas's finding that the death of Mrs. Jones 

was due to asphyxiation as a result of strangulation." He added 

he had specifically advised Mr. Jones it was "his having choked 

Mrs. Jones -- which Mr. Jones readily admitted having done 

which caused the crushing of Mrs. Jones' neck, leading to 

asphyxiation and/or subsequent aspiration which resulted in her 

subsequent death." 

Plaintiff contends his action is "a case of judicial 

deception" committed by Dr. Thomas. Although on appeal he raises 

a number of collateral issues, he does not address the issue of 

immunity ruled upon by the magistrate and adopted by the district 

court. That ruling is critical to the proper disposition of this 

case; therefore, we need not address the issues raised by the 

plaintiff because even were plaintiff correct, he still could not 

prevail upon his complaint. 

We have held, in Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 698 (10th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S . Ct. 1622 (1991), for a theory of 

judicial deception, which must be grounded upon the incorporation 

of falsehoods into official reports, to overcome the defense of 

qualified immunity, "a plaintiff must make a substantial showing 

of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth, such that 

would be needed to challenge the presumed validity of an affidavit 

supporting a search warrant under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 

154." In this case, not only has plaintiff failed to show Dr. 

Thomas acted with a deliberate or reckless disregard for the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1163 Document: 010110149259 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 3 
truth, he also failed to establish the report submitted by the 

defendant was false in any way . 

The only evidence he was able to present was a letter written 

by Dr. Canfield to Mr. Jones' defense counsel. In that letter, 

Dr. Canfield related, although he might have stated Mrs. Jones' 

death was the result of "asphyxia secondary to mechanical 

obstruction of the airway," he added, "[w]e are arguing semantics 

in regard to the mechanisms of death not the underlying cause." 

Moreover, Dr. Canfield advised counsel, "it would appear that 

Shirley Jones may not have been strangled; however, she apparently 

died as a direct result from the trauma inflicted by her husband." 

When Dr. Canfield's letter and subsequent affidavit are 

considered together, it is evident that at best plaintiff was able 

to show only that the two doctors might have disagreed 

professionally about the semantic description of the mechanism by 

which Mrs. Jones' death was caused, but they were in total 

agreement in the ultimate conclusion which attributed death to 

asphyxiation at the hands of her husband. This state of the 

evidence is a far cry from the burden plaintiff had to sustain to 

overcome the defense of qualified immunity. Indeed, it is certain 

Dr. Thomas is simply not guilty of the charges leveled against him 

by the plaintiff. Summary judgment was properly granted, and that 

order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-1163 Document: 010110149259 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 4