Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01175/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Casserly
Appellee
C. Chaddick
Appellee
B. Lucero
Appellee
M. Martinez
Appellee
C. Pohl
Appellee
G. Roetker
Appellee
Douglas Rubins
Appellant
J. Singleton
Appellee
R. Thurlow
Appellee

Document Text:

t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DOUGLAS RUBINS, ) 

) 

Plainitiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

FILEDA ls . ed States Court ~f ppea Uott 'tenth Ci!aHt 

J\JN 14 i99\ 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1175 

) 

G. ROETKER, B. LUCERO, J. SINGLETON,) 

C. CHADDICK, C. POHL, M. MARTINEZ, ) 

J. CASSERLY and R. THURLOW, ) 

(D.C. Civ. No. 89-C-1727) 

(D. Colorado) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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 Douglas Rubins appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his civil rights action, alleging violations of his 

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff has made a request that his motion to proceed in 

* 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: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 1 
.. forma pauperis be referred to a three judge panel and acted upon 

without oral argument. We grant both the motion to submit and the 

right to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 

Plaintiff is an inmate in a state prison in Colorado. He 

alleges that several prison officials and guards choked him, beat 

him, pulled his hair until he dropped to the ground, stabbed him 

with pointed metal objects, and repeatedly "burned" him with stun 

guns. He alleges that the incident occurred after he had agreed 

to be transported peacefully from a holding cell with his hands 

cuffed behind his back and while he was complying with the guards' 

orders. He further alleges that the guard brutality caused him 

severe pain and injuries, including multiple burns, cuts, and a 

partially injured neck. 

Defendant prison guards and officials admit that there was a 

struggle and that they had to use a stun gun on plaintiff. 

However, they present a version of the incident in which plaintiff 

was raising such a ruckus and was so combatant that the force applied was necessary to subdue and transport him. They also 

dispute the degree of force or injury alleged by plaintiff. 

The district court referred the matter to a magistrate to 

evaluate plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B). The magistrate took the oral testimony of the 

plaintiff and two of the defendants. After this hearing, the 

magistrate found the defendants' version of the facts more credible, determined that defendants' actions did not constitute cruel 

1 We accept plaintiff's late filing of a reply brief and addendum. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 2 
and unusual punishment, and recommended dismissal of the complaint 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court reviewed the 

magistrate's findings and recommendation de novo, and adopted 

them. The district court based its decision on the magistrate's 

"evaluation of the witnesses' credibility." Order of May 23, 

1990, at 5. In adopting the magistrate's recommendation, the 

court stated, "Because the Magistrate had the opportunity to 

evaluate the plaintiff's and the defendants' credibility during an 

evidentiary hearing, I find the defendants' version to be the more 

credible and therefore refuse to accept the plaintiff's version of 

the facts." Id. at 7. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that he has been subjected to 

cruel and unusual punishment, that genuine issues of material fact 

were improperly resolved by the magistrate at the hearing, and 

that he is entitled to a jury trial. He also contends he has 

stated a cause of action that defendants were engaged in a 

conspiracy to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on him and to 

fabricate evidence against him in a state court proceeding that 

may result in his unwarranted discipline. 

As to plaintiff's allegations of a conspiracy to file false 

affidavits and to cause him to be punished by a state court 

proceeding that is apparently now ongoing, we agree with the 

district court that plaintiff is in essence attempting to have the 

federal court interfere with the state proceedings. The truth or 

falsity of the claims against plaintiff will be determined in the 

state court proceedings, and until plaintiff has more of a basis 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 3 
J 

' 

than the conclusory allegations he has made in this suit, there is 

no viable claim that could be submitted. 

A magistrate's authority to resolve disputed issues of fact 

in a prisoner's civil rights suit pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B) referral has been addressed recently by the Supreme 

Court. In McCarthy v. Bronson, 59 U.S.L.W. 4441 (U.S. May 21, 

1991), the Court held that the district court may refer to the 

magistrate cases alleging specific acts of unconstitutional 

conduct by prison officials. If plaintiff has waived his right to 

a jury trial, the magistrate may conduct evidentiary hearings and 

submit to the district court proposed fact findings and recommended disposition of the case. Id. at 4443. Although plaintiff 

asserts that he is entitled to a jury trial he made no proper 

demand for one as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), and, 

therefore, must be considered to have waived any right to a jury 

determination of the issues. Thus, McCarthy is controlling here. 

Because the magistrate's evidentiary hearing was essentially 

like a trial on the disputed facts, we have carefully reviewed the 

record, including tapes of the proceedings, to determine whether 

plaintiff received due process. Plaintiff suggests on appeal that 

he had witnesses to present at the hearing but was not allowed to 

do so. At the hearing, plaintiff said at first that he had no 

witnesses. Later during the hearing, he told the magistrate that 

he had several witnesses to call but refused to state their names, 

citing their fears of retaliation as a reason for anonymity. Even 

on appeal, plaintiff refers to the witnesses as "John Doe," "Jerry 

Doe, James Doe, and Jake Doe." Appellant's Opening Brief at 13, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 4 
15. We will not require reopening of the hearing because of the 

possibility that some unidentified witnesses might now have 

testimony to support plaintiff's version of the facts. Plaintiff 

had a duty to call his witnesses at the time of the hearing and to 

provide both the magistrate and defendants at least the names of 

the witnesses. See White v. Lockhart, 857 F.2d 1218, 1220 (8th 

Cir. 1988) (criminal defendant not entitled to continuance when he 

failed to identify the names and anticipated testimony of witnesses he wished to call); United States v. Hemphill, 369 F.2d 

539, 542 (4th Cir. 1966) (qualified privilege must yield shortly 

before and during trial when fairness requires Secretary of Labor 

to furnish lists of prospective witnesses and their statements). 

Furthermore, the magistrate allowed plaintiff considerable 

latitude in cross-examining defendants, despite plaintiff's 

unfamiliarity with the rules of evidence, and permitted plaintiff 

to submit several exhibits. The magistrate carefully considered 

all the testimony and exhibits, and the district court reviewed 

the evidence de novo before adopting the magistrate's fact findings and proposed disposition. See 28 u.s.c. S 636(b)(l). 

We do not dispute plaintiff's contention that he raised 

genuine issues of material fact before the magistrate. However, 

once the magistrate resolved the factual issues on a full and fair 

hearing of the evidence and the district court adopted the 

magistrate's fact findings on de novo review, we review the fact 

findings only for clear error. There is ample evidence in the 

record to support defendants' version of the facts. Under 

defendants' account, the force applied was limited to the amount 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 5 
\ 

necessary to restrain plaintiff, who was creating a disturbance 

and physically assaulted prison officials. See Sampley v. 

Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff's 

constitutional rights violated only when force used was more than 

reasonably necessary at the time to restore discipline). 

Moreover, the magistrate found that plaintiff had not suffered 

severe pain or lasting injury. See id. (prison guard's use of 

force constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only when it 

results in severe pain or lasting injury). 

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's adoption of the magistrate's findings, on which plaintiff's claim of 

cruel and unusual punishment fails. Although the magistrate 

recommended dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in 

which the court's inquiry is to be limited to the pleadings and, 

in certain instances, materials considered to be attached to the 

pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); Hall v. Bellman, No. 90-6326, 

slip op. at 5, 11-13 (10th Cir. June 3, 1991), we do not read the 

district court's order to be on that ground. The hearing before 

the magistrate pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 636(b)(l)(B) was, in this 

case, essentially a trial on the disputed facts, and the court's 

acceptance of those findings after review was a judgment on the 

merits of the cause in the same sense as if it had been a trial to 

the court. 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1175 Document: 010110120897 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 6