Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02274/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger Bratcher
Appellee
Jack Cook
Appellee
Gene Dawson
Appellee
Ron King
Appellee
Dewayne Mathis
Appellee
Elma Mae Medler
Not Party
Other Unknown
Appellee
Charles Sheldon
Appellee
Larry Dean Turner
Appellant
David Welch
Appellee

Document Text:

UN°ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED 

ELMA MAE MEDLER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

LARRY DEAN TURNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

CHARLES SHELDON; RON KING; ) 

ROGER BRATCHER, of the Oklahoma ) 

City and County Police Departments; ) 

JACK COOK; GENE DAWSON; DEWAYNE MATHIS; ) 

DAVID WELCH, of the Lincoln County ) 

Sheriff's Department; OTHER UNKNOWN, ) 

State and Federal persons who are sued ) 

in their individual and official ) 

capacities, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

United States Court of Appeals 

'rl"'nth C:ircnit. 

FEB O 2 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-2274 

(D.C. No. 80-1180-BT) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BURCIAGA, District 

Judge.* 

*The Honorable Juan G. Burciaga, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of New Mexico, sitting by 

After examining the briefs ~nd appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 86-2274 Document: 01019962612 Date Filed: 02/02/1989 Page: 1 
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. 

Larry Dean Turner (plaintiff) appeals the district court's 

order denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief 

from an order dismissing his· complaint. 

a plaintiff in district court, has not 

court's final judgment. 

Elma Mae Medler, who was 

appealed the district 

In his original complaint, plaintiff had sought relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for defendants' alleged violation of 

his civil rights. Plaintiff initially agreed to dismiss his civil 

complaint and plead guilty on a pending criminal charge in 

exchange for the recommendation of a reduced sentence and other 

specified concessions by the district attorney. The district 

court accordingly entered an order dismissing the complaint. In 

his motion for relief from the order of dismissal, however, 

plaintiff contended that he moved to voluntarily dismiss his civil 

rights complaint because of duress and coercion resulting from 

being incarcerated in the Lincoln County Jail prior to trial on 

the pending criminal charge. 

The district court initially denied plaintiff's request for 

Rule 60(b) relief without an evidenttary hearing. On appeal, this 

court concluded that plaintiff was "entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing t o substantiate, if [he is] able, [hi~] claim for. relief 

from the dismissal of the action." Medler v. Sheldon, Unpublished 

No. 82-2375 (10th Cir. ·, filed August 29, 1983). 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2274 Document: 01019962612 Date Filed: 02/02/1989 Page: 2 
On remand, the district court referred the case to the United 

States magistrate, who held an evidentiary hearing, made findings, 

and recommended denying relief from the order of dismissal. The 

district court agreed and denied relief. 

The record on appeal contains several audiotapes of the 

magistrate's evidentiary hearing, held on November 15, 16, and 20, 

1984. The audiotapes of the testimony at that hearing include: 

(1) Elma Mae Medler on direct examination; (2) Bill Roberson on 

direct and cross-examination; (3) Benjamin Butz on direct and 

cross-examination; and (4) Larry Dean Turner in rebuttal. The 

record also contains the exhibits introduced at the evidentiary 

hearing and the parties' pleadings. After reviewing the briefs 

and record on appeal, however, we conclude that there is 

additional testimony missing from the record. Specifically, the 

record on appeal does not contain the direct testimony of 

plaintiff and the testimony of Elma Mae Medler, plaintiff's mother 

and co-plaintiff, during cross-examination. 

Where the original record is unavailable, reconstruction of 

the record is permissible. "It has been held upon several 

occasions that the inability to obtain a stenographic transcript 

of testimony is not enough alone to warrant a new trial." 

Hydramotive Mfg. Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n, 355 F.2d 

179, 180 (10th Cir. 1966)(court reporter left employment without 

preparing a transcript). Rather, the parties may reconstruct the 

record under the procedure outlined in Fed. R. App. P. 10. Even 

where a court repo'rter's notes are lost, and so exact duplication 

of the original .record is not possible, adequate appellate review 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2274 Document: 01019962612 Date Filed: 02/02/1989 Page: 3 
• 

11 

may be obtained. "[T)he Supreme Court in · Draper v. Washington, 

372 U.S. 487 (1963), held that alternative m·ethods of 

reporting trial proceedings are permissible if they place before 

the appellate court an equivalent report of the events at trial 

from which the appellant's contentions arise." United States v. 

Smaldone, 58j F.2d ·1129, 1134 (10th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 

U.S. 1073 and 1119 (1979): see ·also Murphy v. St. Paul Fire & 

Marine Ins. Co., 314 F.2d 30 (5th Cir.)(court reporter's recording 

discs were melted through no fault of the parties), cert. denied, 

375 U.S. 906 (1963). 

"[I]f a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare 

a statemen t of the evidence or proceedings from the best available 

means, including the appellant's recollection." Fed. R. App. P. 

lO(c). The appellant then serves the statement upon the appellee, 

who may in turn serve objections or proposed amendments. Id. 

Although a stenographic transcript of the evidence is 

the usual way ... in which a review of the evidence 

and alleged errors therein is presented to the Court of 

Appeals, it is not the only way in which such a review 

can be obtained. A satisfactory record, including a 

narrative statement of the testimony of the witnesses, 

may at times be· prepared through the use of notes taken 

during the trial by the attorneys and t~e trial judge, 

supplemented by memories of the attorneys, witnesses, 

and the trial judge, by agreement between the parties, 

and possibly from other sources. 

Murphy, 314 F.2d at 32 n.5 (relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 75(n) and 

76, the precursors to Fed. R. App. P. 10). 

The court of appeals may initiate the process to supplement 

the record on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. lO(e). 1 By prior order, 

1 · Rule lO(e) provides, "If anything material to either party is 

omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated 

(footnote cont. on next page) 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2274 Document: 01019962612 Date Filed: 02/02/1989 Page: 4 
this court directed plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. l0(c} 

that if he wished to supplement the record on appeal, he should do 

so by preparing and submitting a statement of his direct testimony 

and his mother's cross-examination testimony during the 

case-in-chief. This court also informed defendants that the court 

would permit them to submit proposed amendments or objections ·to 

plain t iff's statement within ten days after service. Plaintiff 

has now submitted his statement, and defendants have declined to 

respond. We therefore deem plaintiff's statement to be a true and 

accurate statement of the missing testimony. 

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, and 

plaintiff's supplementary statement, we conclude that plaintiff's 

voluntary dismissal of his lawsuit was not the result of duress 

and coercion, and accordingly we affirm the district court's 

judgment for substantially the reasons stated in its order of 

July 31, 1986. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

(cont. from previous page} 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court either 

before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, 

or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of - its own 

initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be 

corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be 

certified and transmitted." 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-2274 Document: 01019962612 Date Filed: 02/02/1989 Page: 5