Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01154/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Alexander
Appellant
Benny Johnson
Appellee
Edward Tenorio
Appellee

Document Text:

\. FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT 2 5 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JAMES ALEXANDER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

EDWARD TENORIO and BENNY 

JOHNSON, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1154 

(D.C. No. 89-Z-613) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

James Alexander, an inmate at Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado, appeals from the district court's 

dismissal, with prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

injury from an incident involving prison guard, Edward Tenorio. 

Alexander's complaint was referred to a magistrate, who held 

an evidentiary hearing on July 31, 1989. The magistrate 

subsequently found that Alexander had "presented no evidence to 

* 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: 90-1154 Document: 010110064844 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
contradict the factual scenario provided by the defendants," R. 

Vol. I, Tab 7 at 5, and therefore recommended that summary judgment be granted the defendants and the complaint be dismissed with 

prejudice. Alexander filed objections. The district court 

adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the action. 

Alexander argues on appeal, as he did in his objections to 

the magistrate's report, that he was denied the right to present 

evidence, specifically, witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. In 

order to assess the validity of Alexander's argument, we called 

for the audio tape recordings of the evidentiary hearing and have 

carefully reviewed the record of that proceeding. 

The record reveals that during the hearing Alexander asked to 

present as witnesses on his behalf inmates who occupied adjacent 

and nearby cells. The magistrate requested an offer of proof and 

Alexander indicated that the witnesses saw the incident in question and would support Alexander's version of the events. The 

magistrate expressed doubt that the proposed witnesses could have 

seen the incident because they were in their cells. Alexander 

assured the magistrate that they could and did see what happened 

by looking through the openings in the doors of their cells. 

Without any further comment, evaluation or ruling on Alexander's 

request and proffer, the magistrate stated he would take the matter under advisement and recessed the hearing. Three months 

later, he recommended that summary judgment be granted to the 

defendants. 

It is axiomatic that a party is entitled to present evidence 

so long as it is relevant and presented in accordance with the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1154 Document: 010110064844 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2 
rules. See,~, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). From this record, however, 

we are unable to determine why Alexander was denied the right to 

present his witnesses. The proceedings appear further confused by 

the apparent submission, after the evidentiary hearing, of affidavits of officers who had testified and been cross-examined at 

the hearing. The necessity and justification for such a hybrid 

approach is also not apparent from the record. 

Under the circumstances, we cannot determine whether summary 

judgment was proper. For this reason, the judgment of the 

district court is VACATED, and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings. We do not consider Alexander's other claims since 

they may be altered by the additional proceedings below. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1154 Document: 010110064844 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 3