Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01296/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUL O 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEP.. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) 

COLORADO, In the Interest of Susan) 

Webb, ) 

Plaintiff, 

and 

SUSAN WEBB, a Child, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOSEPH J. TRAFICANTI and 

RICHARD K. BOWERS, JR., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

JAMES WEBB, 

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

JUDY WEBB, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

Nos. 91-1296 and 91-1306 

(D.C. No. 86-K-2474) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE, District 

Judge.** ~ 

* 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. 

** Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, Senior District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-1296 Document: 010110259107 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 1
Susan and James Webb appeal the dismissal of their damage 

claims for civil contempt against Joseph J. Traficanti and Richard 

K. Bowers, Jr., and the related denial of their motion to amend 

the underlying contempt citation issued by the district of El Paso 

County, Colorado in Civil Action No. 82JV0326. The Webbs assert 

in their motion that an amendment to the state court's contempt 

citation is necessary in order to clarify that they were seeking 

and that the contempt citation allowed -- compensatory damages 

as well as criminal contempt sanctions. 

The background facts are well known to the parties and are 

amply set out in the record. The state district court issued the 

contempt citation in question on August 7, 1986. On December 8, 

1986, the proceedings as to Traficanti and Bowers were removed to 

federal court, and proceedings with regard to state actors continued in the Colorado state courts. At no time was an amendment 

to the initial contempt citation sought or obtained in the state 

courts, and the wording of the citation was not appealed at the 

conclusion of the ongoing state court case. 

In response to the Webb's motion in federal district court, 

the court identified the dispositive facts and ruled as follows: 

On May 18, 1990, Susan and James Webb moved to 

amend the motion for contempt and the contempt or~er 

forming the basis for this action by adding a civil 

claim for damages, costs and attorney fees. Joseph 

Traficanti and Richard Bowers oppose this amendment, 

arguing that it was not the state court's intention to 

award civil damages. The record supports their position. 

In the Webbs' original motion for contempt order, 

they requested, inter alia, "a judgment against Major 

Richard K. Bowers, Jr. [and] Major Joseph J. Traficanti . for damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees 

for prosecution of this action." Motion at 7 (emphasis 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1296 Document: 010110259107 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 2
added). When the contempt order was issued, however, 

the court stated, "Major Richard K. Bowers, Jr. [and] 

Major Joseph J. Traficanti ... are further informed 

that if they are found guilty of contempt they may be 

punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, as~ punitive 

and not~ remedial measure, and to vindicate the dignity 

of this Court." Order at 1 (emphasis added). Thus, it 

appears that the court's clear intention was not to 

award civil damages. 

* * * 

Accordingly, the motion to amend contempt citation is 

DENIED. 

Joint Appellant's Appendix at 128-129. The district court reaffirmed that ruling in denying successive motions to reconsider. 

We agree with the district court that the citation rules out 

remedial relief; thus, contrary to assertions in the Webbs' motion 

below, there is nothing to clarify. 

Counsel for the Webbs candidly acknowledge that " [I]t has 

been slightly confusing to [them] from the beginning of this case 

what role a contempt citation plays in a motion for a civil (compensatory) contempt order." Joint Appellants' Reply Brief at 1. 

Nevertheless, they argue, without direct supporting authority, 

that the wording of the citation is essentially irrelevant if the 

motion for the citation gives sufficient notice, id. at 1-2, and, 

in any event, the citation issued by the state court "can be 

freely amended," id. at 2, presumably by the federal ct>urt to 

which the action has been removed. 

On the latter point, the Webbs argue that the citation can be 

amended under Fed. R. Civ. P. lS(a) because it is "the functional 

equivalent of a complaint." Joint Appellants' Opening Brief at 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1296 Document: 010110259107 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 3
16., Or, it is "at the very least" a "pleading. " Id. We disagree. The citation in question was an order of the court, not a 

pleading. 

We also disagree that the citation is irrelevant because only 

notice is required and the motion for contempt provided notice . 

The citation was a ruling on the motion, and subsequent proceedings were governed by that ruling. 

The Webbs do not elaborate upon any other ground by which the 

district court could amend the contempt citation, and we do not 

undertake to suggest any. To the extent that the citation remained amendable by the district court, we hold that the district 

court did not abuse its d i scretion in denying the Webbs' motion. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit J udge 

Appellate Case: 91-1296 Document: 010110259107 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 4