Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01152/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01152-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis J. Boarts
Appellant
Ralph Granzella
Appellee
Richard Hansen
Appellee

Document Text:

~ 1 , ,.--.1) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

.L' ~ .~ ·'-! ,. A ---,_ United Stat'.'!.: (,n~:;,"~ <?~ p ......... ' 

Tr7_t'.1 Cir::u1. 

APPEALS 

DENNIS BOARTS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RALPH GRANZELLA and RICHARD HANSEN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR241992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 91-1152 

(D.C. No. 89-Z-518) 

(Dist. of Colo. ) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Dennis Boarts (Boarts), appearing prose, appeals from the 

district court's Order of Dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 

rights complaint. He contends that: (1) Res judicata should not 

bar relief in this action because he has not been afforded the 

opportunity to claim monetary damages as a result of his continued 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall n ot 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

be 

for 

res 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 1
incarceration due to due process violations which led to loss o f 

good time and freedom pursuant to parole rather than 

incarceration, and (2) the mootness doctrine should not be applied 

because his good time was not restored in time "for actual 

application which would have led to timely release on parole." 

Mr . Boarts' complaint alleges, inter alia, that he "appealed 

to Department of Corrections and the Disciplinary Action was 

expunged from Mr. Boarts' record and good time reinstated (see 

Appendix A) . 11 (R., Vol. I, Tab 1, p. 5). 

We affirm the Order of Dismissal entered by the district 

court for substantially the reasons set forth in the Order of 

Dismissal dated January 31, 1991, a copy of which is attached 

hereto, and the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

dated October 17, 1989, a copy of which is attached hereto . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 2
I 

F F.B O 5 1991 

IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 89-2-518 

DENNIS J . BOARTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

RALPH GRANZELLA and RICHARD HANSEN, 

Defendants. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

FILED 

U:',,iTED STATES DISTnlCT C0 URT 

nc-• 11,c, r n 1 flA!nO 

I " 1 

• ' : • ! I . • ' I 1 l · : • , 

• • ' 

.~.n ,\ES R tJANSPEAl(ER CLER:: 

Plaintiff Dennis J. Boarts filed this Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 

42 U. S.C . § 1983 on March 28, 1989, against Ralph Granzella, a supervisor at 

the Delta Correctional Facility, and Richard, a corrections officer at the 

De lta Correctional Facility. In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that his 

constitutional due process rights were violated during various prison 

administrative proceedings and in the denial of good time credits. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 605.D., this watter was referred to United States 

Magistrate Hilbert Schauer. Magistrate Schauer filed a Recommendation by 

United States Magistrate on October 17, 1989, in which he recommended that the 

Comp laint be dismissed as the claims raised therein could and should have been 

litigated in previous law suits brought by plaintiff and said claims are 

therefore barred by the doctrine of I.ti judlcata . Plaintiff filed objections 

on November 30, 1989, i n which he objected to the recommendation because the 

pr evi ous law suits sought declarative and injunctive relief while the present 

law suit seeks only monetary relief and because plaintiff's claim based on the 

denial of good time credits did not arise until the termination of the 

previous actions. 

I 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 3
I The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions 

of the Magistrate's recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C . 

§ 636(b)(l). The Court has done so, and has considered carefully the 

rec ommendation of the Magistrate, the petitioner's objections thereto, the 

file in this action as well as the files from the previous actions, and the 

applicable case law. In Civil Action Number 87-2-118, plaintiff raised the 

same allegations of denials of due process ln administrative proceedings. A 

careful review of the Complaint filed in 87-2-118 reveals that plaintiff was 

seeking, in part, monetary relief for the alleged wrongs. The Magistrate 

therefore correctly concluded that plaintiff's due process claims which are 

virtually identical to those raised ln 87-2-118 and which arise out of the 

same body of operative facts are now barred by the doctrine of~ judicata . 

The portion of plaintiff's claim based on the denial of good time 

credits, however, did not arise until June 25, 1987 as that ls the date on 

which plaintiff first became aware of the denial . Civil Action Number 87-2-

118 was dismissed in an Order Of Dismissal entered by this Court on June 11, 

1987. It was therefore impossible for plaintiff to assert his claims based on 

the denial of good time credits in the previous action. However, because 

plaintiff successfully appealed to the Department of Corrections and had his 

good time reinstated and applied towards his parole, plaintiff's claim based 

on denial of good time credits ls moot. ~ Appendix to Civil Rights 

Complaint Pursuant TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Accordingly, it is 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 4
I 

ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant To 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 

this cause of actlon are dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, thls&.}tday of January, 1991. 

,:; l ·,: , [:f) 

01 1 -· ·' ' '.·. • .... ' I: . ~T 

l .! ~• -. ,:. 11 · 1 : · .. .. L . -.... . .- : • -- , C ~ : .- : 

-

BY THE COURT : 

3 

Judge 

ted States District Court 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 5
. _) 

,illtu STATES DISTR1L, 

ornvER COi OR&f\ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 1CT 17198~ 

C ivil Ac tion No. 89-Z-518 ··MES R MANSPEAIU: 

DENNIS J. BOARTS, 

v. 

RALPH GRANZELLA and 

RICIIARD HANSEN, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

RECOUMENDATION BY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

I ". 

Plaintiff Dennis J. Boarts filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 

42 lJ .S.C. § 1983 against Ralph Granzella; a supervisor at the Delta Correctional 

Facility and Richard Hansen; a corrections officer at the Delta Correctional Fac ility. 

In accordance with local Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado, this matter was referred to Magistrate 

Hilbert Schauer. 

In 1987 the Plaintiff filed four separate civil rights cases with the followi ng 

c ivil action numbers and results: 87-Z-I 18; dismissed with prejudice, 87-2-659; 

dismissed without prejudice, 87-2-988; dismissed without prejudice, and 87-Z-I 423; 

dismissed with prejudice. A comparison of the Complaint and Amended Complaint 

in civil action no. 87-Z-118 with the allegations and supporting facts presented in 

the Complaint before the bar today leads to the conclusion that the two cases raise 

the same issues arising from the same circumstances and also name Ralph Granzella 

and Ric hard Hansen as defendants. 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 6
l 

/ 

/ 

For example, In the Complaint In civil action no. 89-2-518, Plaintiff states: 

On or about 10-27-86, Richard Hansen issued a notice of a 

violation of the code of penal discipline to the plaintiff 

(case II 75- l l-FY86 Colorado Dept. of Corrections) for wearing 

a head band in the chowhall. 

Complaint, C (l) (A) (I). In the Amended Complaint of civil action no.87-2-118, 

Plaintiff states: "Inmate Boarts, after filing a grievance for harassment on 

Mr. Hansen, was given a Class II write up for wearing his headband in the chow hall, 

on Oct 31, 1986." Amended Complaint, paragraph no. 236. 

Additionally, in the Complaint in civil action no. 89-2-518 the Plaintiff 

states: 

Mr. Boarts was then made to work on a labor crew, although 

he had a medical restriction. . • • Mr. Boarts' labor assignment, 

after being terminated from the law library, caused his neck 

injury to inflame. Mr. Boarts was taken to the doctor on 

10-28-86, and the doctor reaffirmed Mr. Boarts lifting limit 

of 25 lbs., but Mr. Granzella again assigned Mr. Boarts to a 

labor gang. The labor crew leader, Mr. Carpenter refused to 

take Mr. Boarts out on the crew, because of Mr. Boarts' injury 

and lifting limitation. 

Complaint, page 3 Band 3 C. 

The Amended Complaint of civil action no.87-2-118 states: 

Dennis Boarts informed, Mr. Hall, his caseworker, that he had 

a medical lifting restric tion of 25 lbs •••• Ur. Granzella assigned 

Dennis Boarts to the law library • • • Boarts was terminated 

from his Job at the law library on Octobe r 21, 1986 •••• again 

assigned to a labor crew by Mr. Granzella •••. The medical 

doc tor confirmed Dennis Boarts neck injury and 25 lb. lifting 

limit. The next day, about October 29, 1986 Dennis Boarts 

was again assigned to a labor crew. Mr. Carpenter, crew leader, 

refused to take Dennis Boarts out on his labor crew because 

of the doc tors orders. 

A mended Com plaint, pp. 13-15. 

The Count in the Complaint in civil action no. 89-2-518 alleges the violation 

of Plaintiff's First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a comparison 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 7
ihows that the Amended Complaint In civil action no. 87-2-118 allege& th!! same 

violations. Complaint, in 89-2-518 C(l)(A)(l), page 3 and Amended Complaint, 

in 87-2-1 I 8 paragraph no. 123. 

In civil action no. 87-Z-118 the Court entered a Judgment of Dismissal 

with Prejudice against the Plaintiff. Under res judicata, a final judgment on the 

merits of an a c tion prec ludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues 

that were or could have been raised in the original action. Allen v. Mccurry, 449 U.S. 

90, 9 4 (1980) citing Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1876); Petro 

management Corporation v. Ac me-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329, 1335 

(1 0th Cir. 1988). 

As shown above, with the exception of the claim of a loss of seven days 

good time and ten days earned time, the assertions in the Complaint in the present 

c ivil action are inc luded in the prior action which was dismissed with prejudice by 

the Court. Furthermore, the allegations claiming loss of good time and earned time 

could have been raised in the prior action. Therefore, Plaintiff is barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata from asserting the claims set forth in the Complaint in civil 

a c tion no. 89-Z-518. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Dennis Boarts' Civil Rights Complaint be 

dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff be required to obtain leave of Court prior 

to filing any further actions in this Court. 

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED chat under Rule 605 of the Local Rules of 

Practice of the United States Distric t Courc for the District of Colorado, the parties 

shall have ten (JO) days after the servic e hereof to serve and file any written 

objections in order to obtain reconsideracion by the Honorable Zita L. Weinshienk, 

Distric t Judge to whom this case is assigned. 

) 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States District 

Court shall attach co a copy of this Recommendation for the Plaintiff a copy of 

Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for 

the District of Colorado. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 

1989. 

BY THE COURT: 

HirI>ert $~~ Sc hauer 

United States Magistrate 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1152 Document: 010110243059 Date Filed: 04/24/1992 Page: 9