Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04058/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Deland
Appellee
Paul Gardunio
Appellant

Document Text:

,, 

FILED 

Unit~ Statet Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS T!"nth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 7 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

PAUL GARDUNIO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 91-4058 

) (D. C. No. 87-281-A) 

GARY DELAND, ) (D. Utah) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* be 

for 

res 

Mr. Gardunio appeals a grant of summary judgment. I.. 

Mr. Gardunio, a state prison inmate, filed his pro se 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

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. 

Appellate Case: 91-4058 Document: 010110131438 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 1 
! 

complaint under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 against the Executive Director of 

the Utah Department of Corrections. The complaint alleged a wide 

variety of constitutional wrongs. At Mr. Gardunio's request, 

counsel was appointed to represent him and appointed counsel 

entered his appearance. Defendant then filed a motion for summary 

judgment supported by evidentiary material. The certificate of 

service indicated a copy had been mailed to Mr. Gardunio. Mr. 

Gardunio's counsel also had a copy. Neither Mr. Gardunio nor his 

counsel responded to this motion. As the matter had been referred 

to a magistrate, a Report and Recommendation was entered 

recommending Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. 

A copy of this report and recommendation was mailed to Mr. 

Gardunio's counsel. No objections were filed to the magistrate's 

report, and the district court subsequently entered summary 

judgment for the Defendant. 

Within a week of the summary judgment's entry, Mr. Gardunio 

responded with a prose motion to reconsider stating as grounds 

that he had not received a copy of the magistrate's Report and 

Recommendation. This motion was denied by the district court 

without stated reasons. 

Mr. Gardunio now appeals prose asserting lack of notice and 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Concerning the lack of notice, the record on appeal clearly 

shows a copy of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4058 Document: 010110131438 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 2 
J 

mailed to Mr. Gardunio's counsel. Mr. Gardunio has no right to 

receive filings separate and apart from his counsel. Service upon 

Mr. Gardunio's counsel was all the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure required. See Fed. R. Civ. P.(b). 

Concerning Mr. Gardunio's claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, Mr. Gardunio has failed to cite any cases showing he is 

entitled to effective assistance of counsel in the maintenance of 

his civil action. Whether Mr. Gardunio's counsel neglected to act 

or whether he saw no merit to Mr. Gardunio's claims and could not 

respond within the strictures of Rule 11 is not before us. The 

issue before us is whether or not Mr. Gardunio had a right to the 

effective assistance of counsel in his civil rights lawsuit. We 

hold he did not. MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

The strict standards of effective assistance of counsel 

mandated by the Sixth Amendment and the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure do not apply to civil proceedings. A party with 

privately retained counsel does not have any right to a new trial 

in a civil suit because of ineffective counsel, and neither does 

a party with appointed counsel. Neither private counsel nor 

appointed counsel are immune from suit for malpractice. Mr. 

Gardunio's rights and remedies are the same as those of any other 

civil rights plaintiff. Watson v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 766 (8th 

Cir. 1980). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4058 Document: 010110131438 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 3 
J' 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4058 Document: 010110131438 Date Filed: 08/07/1991 Page: 4