Houghton v. Osborne

• Decision Date: 09 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 85-4205,85-4205
• Citation: 834 F.2d 745
• Parties: Henderson Duval HOUGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn OSBORNE, Frank Tuss, H. William Coder, Joel G. Roth and Gladys M. Vance, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 745

834 F.2d 745

Henderson Duval HOUGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn OSBORNE, Frank Tuss, H. William Coder, Joel G. Roth and Gladys M. Vance, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 85-4205.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 9, 1987. ^*

Decided Dec. 14, 1987.

Henderson Duval Houghton, pro se.

Barbara L. Bosman-Moss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Mont., for defendants-appellees Coder and Roth.

Nancy P. Cory, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Slovak, Great Falls, Mont., for defendants-appellees Osborne, Tuss and Vance.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana (Great Falls).

Before GOODWIN, ALARCON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

ALARCON, Circuit Judge:

The novel question presented to us in this appeal is whether the district court had the jurisdiction to refer the merits of the plaintiff's claim to a United States magistrate under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 (1982). Because we determine that the claims at issue in this case do not involve conditions of confinement, we reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it purported to refer a claim that does not invoke a condition of confinement to a magistrate for an evidentiary hearing on the merits.

We must also decide whether judges are immune from liability for violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982) for refusing a jail inmate's request that he be allowed to appear in court for pretrial criminal proceedings in his own clothing. We affirm the district court decision on this issue and hold that judges are immune from liability under such circumstances.

I

Plaintiff-appellant Henderson D. Houghton (hereinafter Houghton) appeals from (1) the dismissal of his section 1983 action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) against Montana Judges H. William Coder and Joel G. Roth; (2) the order of summary judgment in favor of Justice of the Peace Gladys M. Vance; and (3) the order of involuntary dismissal after an evidentiary hearing before the magistrate, on motion of Frank Tuss, Cascade County jail supervisor and Glenn Osborne, Cascade County sheriff. In his complaint, Houghton alleged that a Cascade County requirement that he appear at various court proceedings, doctor appointments and psychiatric evaluations in jail clothing violated his fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection rights, as well as his eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

A

Houghton was arrested on felony charges and detained in the Cascade County jail. At that time, the Cascade County Sheriff's Department required that a person in custody wear jail clothing when appearing in non-jury proceedings, unless the trial judge ordered that prisoners not appear in jail clothing, or jail clothing was not available in the inmate's size. Houghton challenges this policy in the instant matter.

After Houghton was arrested, a question was raised regarding his capacity to stand trial. Following psychiatric evaluations and a court hearing, Houghton was adjudged incapable to stand trial and committed to the Montana State Hospital until such time as his competency was restored.

B

Following the filing of this complaint, the district court referred the matter to a United States magistrate. Thereafter, Judge Coder and Judge Roth filed motions to dismiss the action on the grounds of judicial immunity. The magistrate filed proposed findings of fact and recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted. The district court, after reviewing the record, accepted the magistrate's recommendation and entered a judgment of dismissal.

After the district court's decision on the motion to dismiss, the magistrate held an evidentiary hearing at the Montana State Hospital on the merits of Houghton's claims against the remaining defendants. The magistrate had previously ordered that discovery be completed prior to the date for the evidentiary hearing. At the beginning of these proceedings, Judge Vance filed a motion for summary judgment claiming judicial immunity. After the presentation of evidence on the merits of Houghton's claims, Tuss and Osborne moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to show a right to relief.

Following the presentation of evidence, the magistrate filed proposed findings of fact and recommended that Judge Vance's motion for a summary judgment be granted. He also recommended that the claims against Tuss and Osborne be dismissed because Houghton had failed to establish any constitutional violation in the application of the jail clothing policy to him. The district court, after review of the record, adopted the magistrate's recommendations.

Appellant has appealed each of the district court's orders.

II

We first address sua sponte the jurisdiction of the district court to refer the claims against Tuss and Osborne to the magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The district court's jurisdiction to refer matters to a magistrate is set forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636. Section 636(b)(1) states:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary--

(A) a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, ... to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.

(C) the magistrate shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.

Within ten days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.

(Emphasis added).

The statute authorizes a magistrate to submit to the district court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 453 (9th Cir.1983) ("a judge may designate a magistrate to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of a motion to dismiss"). Section 636(b)(1)(B) also authorizes a magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing of a pretrial motion to "involuntarily dismiss an action" or of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement, including section 1983 actions. See Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 74 (4th Cir.1985) (1983 action by prisoner challenging conditions of confinement falls within class of proceedings which may be referred to a magistrate under section 636(b)(1)(B)). Tuss and Osborne did not make a pretrial motion "to involuntarily dismiss" the action filed against them. The district court referred this matter to the magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Houghton's remaining claims. Tuss and Osborne moved for involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing.

Section 636(b)(1)(B) permits a magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Tuss and Osborne did not move for summary judgment before the evidentiary hearing or at any time. After both sides presented arguments regarding the merits of Houghton's claims, the magistrate said, "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt at this stage and assume that you put on a prima facie case by showing that picture and your opening statements." At that time the magistrate proceeded with the calling of witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing the defendants made an oral motion to dismiss. Their attorney stated that she thought "the testimony presents to the court no choice but to dismiss the complaint for complete failure on behalf of plaintiff to show to the court any basis for either equal protection violation or cruel and unusual punishment."

A motion for summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute to be resolved by a trier of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Here the magistrate found that Houghton had presented a "prima facie case" that he was entitled to recover. Tuss and Osborne proceeded to present evidence. Had Tuss and Osborne failed to go forward with the presentation of evidence, presumably the magistrate would have found for Houghton. A ruling that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case is inconsistent with a determination that no genuine issue of material fact was in dispute or that the defendants were entitled to judgment.

As noted above, after the presentation of evidence was completed, Tuss and Osborne moved for a dismissal of the complaint. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move for involuntary dismissal in a bench trial after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of evidence "on the grounds that the plaintiff has shown no right to relief." Tuss and Osborne's motion for a dismissal, while not labelled as such, was proper under Rule 41...