Opinion ID: 480166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: 10 Scarpa claims that the district court erred in not finding that he had been hit in the head with a nightstick. We are, of course, bound to accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). A finding is clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); S.E.C. v. MacDonald, 725 F.2d 9, 11 (1st Cir.1984). 11 A review of the record in this case convinces us that the district court did not err in failing to find that Scarpa had been struck with a nightstick. Foster Robertson, who helped destroy the trailer interior and admitted assaulting Officer Tierney, was the only witness who testified that he actually saw Scarpa hit on the head with a nightstick. Both Tierney and Holmes directly contradicted Robertson's account, specifically denying they had struck Scarpa with a nightstick. Findings based on witness credibility are lodged firmly in the province of the trial court, and we are loathe to disturb them absent a compelling showing of error. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512; Oxford Shipping Co. v. New Hampshire Trading Corp., 697 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1982). No such showing has been made here. The validity of Judge Freedman's finding is bolstered by the fact that neither of two disinterested eyewitnesses, residents of the trailer park who did not attend the Robertson party, testified to actually seeing Scarpa struck with a nightstick. 12 Scarpa argues that the medical testimony presented at trial demonstrated that his injury could only have been caused by the infliction of a severe blow to the head. He claims this evidence compels a finding that the nightsticking occurred, since that is the only plausible explanation for the severity of the injury he suffered. We reject this argument for two reasons. First, although Dr. Mangiapane stated that appellant would be most likely to have suffered his injury via a severe blow to the head, he indicated there were other possible causes of the injury as well, such as a slight blow. Second, even if a severe blow was the only possible cause of Scarpa's injury, it does not follow that a nightsticking must have occurred. The district court found, and we agree, that Scarpa could have sustained the injurious blow in a fight that reportedly took place in the trailer before the police arrived, during the struggle with Officer Holmes, or during the two altercations that took place in the State Police Barracks between Scarpa and Trooper Rosati. Since Scarpa's injury need not have been caused by a severe blow, and since he could have suffered a severe blow without being struck by a nightstick, the district court concluded that Scarpa had failed to prove his hearing loss had been caused by any unreasonable action of the defendants. We do not find this conclusion to be clearly erroneous. 13 Scarpa's last argument focuses on the degree of force employed by the officers in subduing the youths. Police officers must not use unreasonable force when apprehending suspects. Landrigan v. City of Warwick, 628 F.2d 736, 741-42 (1st Cir.1980). Scarpa asserts that Officers Holmes and Tierney were unreasonable in failing to wait for backup officers before attempting to apprehend Martin. He claims that merely by returning to the trailer porch after the initial scuffle, the officers provoked the second attack upon them by the trailer occupants. He argues that since the officers' unreasonable act of returning to the porch provoked the second altercation with the partygoers, the force employed to subdue their assailants was unreasonable. This argument is meritless. The officers did not provoke the attack. The officers were attacked while they were trying to do their duty. Officers Holmes and Tierney were not confronting suspects who possessed weapons, nor did the officers have reason to suspect that they would be greatly outnumbered. We will not second-guess their decision to return to the trailer porch without waiting for backup assistance. To have done otherwise could be construed as a shirking of their duty. Even if we did regard their decision to proceed as imprudent, that would not justify Scarpa's jumping onto the back of Holmes; the force used by the officer to ward off Scarpa still would have been reasonable. 14 Affirmed. 15 We consider an appeal such as this which turns on credibility findings by the finder of fact to be frivolous. Appellant is, therefore, assessed double costs and attorney's fees of $1,000. Fed.R.App.P. 38.