DA 10 - 0492 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2011 MT 72N MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANGELA B. WETZSTEON and GEORGE H. CORN, Defendants and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty - First Judicial District,

In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DV - 10 - 222/3 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Michael E. Spreadbury(Self - Represented) , Hamilton, Mo ntana For Appellee: Michael R . King , Department of Administration, Risk Management & Tort Defense Division, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 16, 2011 Decided: April 12, 2011 Filed:

__________________________________________ C lerk April 12 20112

Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by me morandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Michael Spreadbury appeals the Twenty- First Judicial District Court’s order grant ing summary judgment to Angela Wetzsteon and George Corn. We affirm.

**FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND** ¶3 In October 2006, Spreadbury was charged with assault. The case was assigned to the Ravalli County Justice Court. Wetzsteon was a third - year law stud ent at th etime and was interning for the Ravalli County Attorney’s Officeunder the Montana Supreme Court’s Student Practice Rule (the Rule) . George Corn was the Ravalli County Attorney who authorized Wetzsteon to handle case s . Wetzsteon was approved to represent Ravalli County in the prosecution of Spreadbury. ¶4 On January 5, 2007, Spreadbury entered anot guilty plea in Justice Court. He was released on his own recognizance but was expressly required to appear in court for subsequent proceedings. Spreadbury’s trial was scheduled for July 31, 2007. On July 30, the Ravalli County deputy county attorney moved for a continuance on the ground the victim was unable to appear at the July 31 trial. Spreadbury’s counsel was invited to respond to the motion b ut declined . The Justice Court first denied the motion but after rev iewing the county attorney’s motion to reconsider, granted it. Trial was set for August3

8, 2007. Spreadbury’s counsel was again contacted and notified of the August 8 trial date and said that “will work.” ¶5 On August 6, 2007, Spreadbury’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the chargeo n the grounds that Spreadbury had notreceived aspeedy trial and on discovery issues. The judge denied the motion. Spreadbury’s counsel appeared at the Aug ust 8 trial but Spreadbury did not. He was found guilty in absentia. The judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest. On Aug

ust 16, he was arrested and taken into custody. Spreadbury was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fines and costs totaling approximately $1,100. ¶6 On August 22, Spreadbury appealed his conviction to the Twenty- First Judicial District Court. On November 26, 2007, Spreadbury moved to dismiss his assault charge on the ground that he had been denied a speedy trial. The District Court g ranted the motion on January 22, 2008. On April 26, 2010, Spreadbury file d this civil action against Wetzsteonand her supervisor, Corn, s eeking compensatory and punitive damages. On May 24, 2010, Wetzsteon and Corn moved for summary judgment. On August25, 2010, the District Court granted Wetzsteon and Corn’s motion. **ISSUE** ¶7 A restatement of the issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting Wetzsteon and Corn’s motion for summary judgment. **STANDARD OF REVIEW** ¶8 On appeal from a district court’s grant of summary judgment, our standard of rev iew is de novo, and we apply the criteria set forth in M. R. Civ. P. 56. “ Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the4

mo ving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ehrman v. Kaufman , 2010 MT 284, ¶ 10, 358 Mont. 519, 246 P.3d 1048 (citations omitted). **DISCUSSION** ¶9 Spreadbury asserts on appeal that summary judgment was inappropriate because (1) an unlicensed law student may not act as a lawyer in a criminal proceeding; (2) prosecutorial immunity is not av ailable to the law student and her supervisor ; (3) the District Court erred in ignoring his claim of criminal contempt based on Wetzsteon’s violation of the Student Practice Rule; and (4) Corn, as Wetzsteon’s supervisor, was personally liable under the Student Practice Rule in the eventWetzsteon is f ound to be in violation of the R

ule . ¶10 In granting Wetzsteonand Corn’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court, without analysis, concluded Wetzsteon and Corn had prosecutorial immunity from all of the claims raised by Spreadbury . The court further concluded that Spreadbury presented no facts creating a material question; rather, he merely set forth speculative and conclusory statements. As such, the District Court ruled Wetzsteon and Corn were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court dismissed Spreadbury’s complaint with prejudice. ¶11 Rev

iewing the record in this case and the relevant provisions of the Student Practice Rule, we conclude neither Wetzsteon nor Corn violated the Rule. Additionally, had Wetzsteon or Corn failed to strictly comply with the Rule, Spreadbury has presented no legal authority to support his argument that such lack of compliance deprives a student pros ecutor

o r the supervising prosecutor o f prosecutorial immunity. Lastly, and again5

assuming arguendo that Wetzsteon and Corn were not in strict compliance with the Rule, S preadbury has fa iled to demonstrate how such lack of compliance could have proximatel y caused any of the injuries anddamages he claims. ¶12 We hav

e determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The issues in this case are legal and are contr olled by settled Montana law, whichthe District Court correctly interpreted . ¶13 Weaffirm the judgment of the District Court.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

We concur: /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT