Allan Maul v. Logan County Board of County C

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 23, 2007
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ALLAN SHONTA MAUL;
VERNON WHITESIDE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 07-6009
(D.C. No. CIV-05-605-C)
CITY OF LANGSTON; DAVID (W.D. Okla.)
WEBB, individually and in his official
capacity as Chief of Langston Police
Force; MICHAEL BONDURANT,
individually and in his official
capacity as Langston Police Officer,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Plaintiffs Allan Shonta Maul and Vernon Whiteside appeal the district
court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants City of Langston, Police Chief
Webb, and Police Officer Bondurant (collectively, “City defendants”) on their
claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating their Fourth-Amendment
rights. They also appeal the order denying their motion to reconsider. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Background
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history. Accordingly,
we provide only an abbreviated outline of the background, construing the facts in
the light most favorable to plaintiffs because they are the parties opposing
summary judgment. Plaintiffs were two of about fifteen guests at a party held at a
private residence on December 27, 1999. Six days later, one of the party
attendees, a sixteen-year-old girl, claimed plaintiffs separately had nonconsensual
sexual relations with her during the party after she had consumed alcohol.
Officer Bondurant investigated the complaint. He interviewed plaintiffs and the
party host, but did not interview any of the others present during the party.
Officer Bondurant initiated proceedings against plaintiffs, providing two
affidavits to demonstrate probable cause. After a state assistant district attorney
reviewed the case, plaintiffs were arrested and charged with first-degree rape.
See Okla. Stat., tit. 21, §§ 1111(A); 1114(A)(2) & (3). A preliminary hearing was
held in April 2000, after which a state-court judge found probable cause to bind
-2-
plaintiffs over for trial. Ultimately, a jury acquitted plaintiffs of the charges in
May 2003.
Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court asserting various claims against
numerous defendants. In orders not included in this appeal, the district court
disposed of the claims against all defendants except the three appellees named
herein. As relevant to this case, plaintiffs pursued claims under § 1983 against
the City defendants for the constitutional torts of malicious prosecution and abuse
of process, and for violating their substantive due-process rights. 1 Plaintiffs
claimed that Officer Bondurant included a false statement and omitted
exculpatory evidence in his probable-cause affidavits, and that Chief Webb
improperly supervised Bondurant’s investigation and failed to properly train him.
Chief Webb and Officer Bondurant interposed the defense of qualified immunity.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City defendants.
Addressing plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution and abuse-of-process claims, the
court determined that plaintiffs did not show that Officer Bondurant had included
a false statement in his affidavit, and “even if the omitted facts were considered,
the assistant district attorney had probable cause to bring charges against
Plaintiffs and, furthermore, the subsequent preliminary hearing cured prior
constitutional defects.” Aplt. App., Vol. 2, at 885. The court rejected plaintiff’s
1
Plaintiffs conceded in the district court that they could not maintain their
remaining claims and they do not attempt to pursue those claims here.
-3-
substantive-due-process claims “because the evidence could not reasonably
support the inference that either Bondurant or Webb intentionally violated or were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s rights and because the record did not reveal
conduct that would shock the judicial conscience.” Id. at 885-86. The court also
held that Bondurant and Webb were entitled to qualified immunity because
plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show that defendants had violated a
constitutional right. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the district
court denied.
Plaintiffs appeal, asserting error only in the district court’s
summary-judgment rulings on their malicious-prosecution claim and on qualified
immunity.
Discussion
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing
the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
McGowan v. City of Eufala, 472 F.3d 736, 741 (10th Cir. 2006). Summary
judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). We review the district
court’s order denying reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Jennings v.
Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 2005).
-4-
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the parties’ briefs, and
the applicable law. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the district
court’s thorough, careful, and accurate order granting summary judgment to the
City defendants for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion and order dated
October 4, 2006. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to
deny reconsideration of the summary-judgment order for the reasons stated in the
November 29, 2006 order denying reconsideration.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-5-