Court Opinion

ID: 2964382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:52.099811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.107306
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 11, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1881

                                     JOHN MCCABE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             LEONARD MACH, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            John McCabe on brief pro se.
            ___________
            Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, Shelley L. Taylor,  Assistant
            _________________                    _________________
        Attorney General,  Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney
                           ____________________
        General, and William D.  Saltzman, Department of Correction, on  brief
                     ____________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have reviewed  carefully the record  in
                 __________

            this case, including  the trial transcript and the  briefs of

            the parties.  We  find no reversible error to  have occurred.

            We add only the following.

                 We  find no  abuse of  discretion in  the trial  court's

            denial  of McCabe's request for appointment of counsel.  In a

            civil  case,   counsel  is  required  only   in  "exceptional

            circumstances" where absence of  counsel is "likely to result

            in fundamental  unfairness  impinging on  [a litigant's]  due

            process rights."  DesRosiers  v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15,  23 (1st
                              __________     _____

            Cir.  1991).    The  instant  case,  which  did  not  involve

            particularly complex  questions of law or  fact, presented no

            such exceptional circumstances.  

                 Nor  did the  court  abuse its  discretion in  admitting

            testimony, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), concerning prior

            acts  of institutional  violence committed  by McCabe.   Such

            evidence  had bearing  on the  correction officers'  state of

            mind while attempting to remove McCabe from his cell and thus

            was relevant to their defense against  McCabe's claim to have

            been  the victim  of constitutionally  excessive force.   See
                                                                      ___

            McCrary-El v. Shaw, 992  F.2d 809, 812 (8th Cir.  1993).  The
            __________    ____

            court committed  no error  in determining that  the probative

            value of this testimony  outweighed any prejudicial effect it

            might have had on McCabe.

                                         -2-

                 Finally,  we  find   no  reversible  error  in   defense

            counsel's  appeal to the  jurors to "[p]ut  yourselves in the

            [shift commander's]  position and  ask, as he  stood, whether

            his  decision was  reasonable."   Counsel was  not improperly

            asking the jurors  "to depart from neutrality  and decide the

            case on the basis  of personal interest and bias  rather than

            on the evidence,"  Forrestal v. Magendantz, 848 F.2d 303, 309
                               _________    __________

            (1st  Cir. 1988), but  to evaluate the  reasonableness of the

            situation from what was  known to the shift commander.   Such

            an   appeal  to   "collective   common  sense"   is  not   an

            inappropriate invocation of the "golden rule."  United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Abreu, 952 F.2d  1458, 1471 (1st Cir.), cert.  denied, 503
               _____                                   _____  ______

            U.S.  994 (1992).    Moreover, any  possible prejudice  which

            might have  arisen was corrected by  the court's instructions

            to  the  jury that  it determine  the  case "entirely  on the

            evidence as  you have  seen it  and heard  it  right in  this

            courtroom.   Without any  bias, without any  prejudice."  See
                                                                      ___

            Forrestal,  848  F.2d  at  309  (no  prejudice  where  proper
            _________

            instruction cured "golden rule" error).

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-