Murphy v. Gardner, No. 02 CV 01918 MSK OES.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtKrieger
Citation413 F.Supp.2d 1156
PartiesMichael Paul MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. Jeffery GARDNER, Kevin Moffitt, Troy Bozarth, Kirk Ring, Stephen C. Zotos, and Jeremy McGee, Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. 02 CV 01918 MSK OES.
Decision Date01 February 2006
413 F.Supp.2d 1156
Michael Paul MURPHY, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffery GARDNER, Kevin Moffitt, Troy Bozarth, Kirk Ring, Stephen C. Zotos, and Jeremy McGee, Defendants.
No. 02 CV 01918 MSK OES.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
February 1, 2006.

Page 1157

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1158

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1159

Daniel Joseph Schendzielos, Cisneros & Schendzielos, LLC, Thomas Sullivan Rice, Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Brian Keith Matise, Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, P.C., Englewood, CO, Eric Michael Ziporin, Gillian Marie Fahlsing, Thomas Sullivan Rice, Senter, Goldfarb & Rice, LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KRIEGER, District Judge.


THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Plaintiffs Objections (# 68) to the March 16, 2005 Order (# 62) of United States Magistrate Judge O. Edward Schlatter, the Defendants' response (# 71), and the Plaintiff's reply (# 75); the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 73), the Plaintiff's response (undocketed1), and the Defendants' reply (# 88); and the Plaintiff's Objections (# 99) to the June 15, 2005 Order (# 95) of Magistrate Judge Schlatter striking certain documents filed by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants' response (# 97).

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth the facts of this case in its November 10, 2003

Page 1160

Order (# 41), and that recitation is deemed incorporated herein. In general, the Plaintiff contends that his rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated by the Defendants in three separate incidents. The first incident occurred on or about June 24, 2002, when the Plaintiff was appearing in Colorado County Court for Douglas County on a request by a former girlfriend for an order of protection against him. The Plaintiff claims that, during a recess in that proceeding, Defendant Gardner2 allegedly arrested the Plaintiff and engaged him in a conversation in which Defendant Gardner questioned the Plaintiff, outside the presence of his attorney, concerning an alleged violation of a prior restraining order. The second incident occurred on October 4, 2002, when Defendant Moffitt contacted the Plaintiff by telephone and attempted to question him, again without the assistance of counsel, concerning another alleged violation of the order of protection. The final incident also occurred on October 4, 2002, when Defendants Bozarth, Ring, and McGee3 appeared at the Plaintiff's residence and sought to speak with him, outside the presence of his counsel, but were rebuffed by the Plaintiff's mother and brother.

The Plaintiff commenced this action, alleging three claims for relief, all under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:(i) that Defendant Gardner's interrogation on June 24, 2002 violated the Plaintiffs 4th and 5th Amendment rights; (ii) that, during the two separate incidents on October 4, 2002, Defendants Bozarth, Ring, and Moffitt conspired to arrest the Plaintiff without a warrant, in violation of his 4th and 5th Amendment rights; and (iii) that Defendant Zotos knew of Defendant Gardner's conduct on June 24, 2002 and took no action to prevent or remedy it.

On March 17, 2005, Magistrate Judge Schlatter resolved (# 62) several pending discovery disputes during a conference call (# 67) with the parties. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Schlatter granted a motion for protective order (# 55) by Defendant Bozarth, limiting the Plaintiff's ability to inquire as to a 2001 charge of misconduct and criminal prosecution against Defendant Bozarth; denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (# 59) of a prior order (# 57) by the Magistrate Judge denying the Plaintiff's request (# 50) to extend discovery due to the Defendants' alleged failure to promptly produce requested documents; denied the Plaintiff's motion (# 60) to stay depositions and extend the discovery deadline pending the Magistrate Judge's decision on certain pending motions; and granted an oral motion by the Defendants for a protective order to limit the scope of the Plaintiff's questioning of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff filed timely Objections (# 68) to the Magistrate Judge's rulings, challenging: (i) the granting of the protective order to Defendant Bozarth, insofar as the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not timely object to his discovery demands for the information in question, and therefore cannot obtain a protective order; (ii) the granting of the oral motion for protective order, in that the information sought by the Plaintiff was relevant to his claim that Defendant Zotos failed to adequately supervise and discipline his officers;

Page 1161

and (iii) the denial of the motion for reconsideration,4 insofar as the Defendants had made extensive supplemental disclosures late in the day on the final day of the discovery period.

The Defendants then filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (# 73), alleging: (i) that the Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant Gardner's actions constituted either a 4th or 5th Amendment violation, and that even if so, such rights were not "clearly established," entitling Defendant Gardner to qualified immunity; (ii) that the Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants Moffitt, Ring, and Bozarth either conspired with any other person, or that any of their actions constituted a 4th or 5th Amendment violation, and that even if so, such rights were not "clearly established"; (iii) that the Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation by another, sufficient to impose liability of Defendant Zotos, and that even if so, such rights were not "clearly established." The Plaintiff's response concedes that the 5th Amendment components of his claims cannot be sustained under the present facts, and that he has no evidence supporting an assertion of conspiracy, but maintains that sufficient evidence supports the 4th Amendment claims against each Defendant and the claim against Defendant Zotos.

In conjunction with the Plaintiff's summary judgment response, he filed, as a separate document, the case record from the 2001 criminal proceedings against Defendant Bozarth in the Colorado County Court for Douglas County. The Defendants moved to strike (# 82) that filing on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not previously disclosed it in discovery and that the filing was an incorrect way to append exhibits to a summary judgment response. Magistrate Judge Schlatter granted (# 95) the Defendants' motion to strike, finding that "a party cannot simply file a clump of materials with the court with the broad request that they be considered `with respect to discovery, summary judgment and evidentiary issues at trial.'" The Plaintiff then filed a timely Objection (# 96) to that ruling.

JURISDICTION

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate only 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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir.1994); see also In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 209 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D.Colo.2002). Whether there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact depends upon whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or conversely, is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 210 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.2000); Carey

Page 1162

v. U.S. Postal Service, 812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir.1987). A fact is "material" if it pertains to an element of a claim or defense; a factual dispute is "genuine" if the evidence is so contradictory that if the matter went to trial, a reasonable party could return a verdict for either party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The court must resolve factual ambiguities against the moving party, thus favoring the right to a trial. Houston v. Nat'l General Ins. Co., 817 F.2d 83, 85 (10th Cir.1987); Quaker State Minit-Lube, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 52 F.3d 1522, 1527 (10th Cir.1995); Grayson v. American Airlines, Inc., 803 F.2d 1097, 1101 (10th Cir.1986).

The analysis to be applied on a motion for summary judgment differs depending on whether the moving party is also the party with the burden of proof at trial. Where, as here, the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the non-movant must point to specific evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact with regard to each challenged element. Ribozyme, 209 F.Supp.2d at 1111; Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir. 2002).

In considering Objections to nondispositive rulings by a Magistrate Judge, the Court must adopt the Magistrate Judge's rulings unless it finds that the rulings are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir.1997); Ariza v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 133 (D.Colo.1996). Accordingly, the Objections will be overruled unless the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion or, if after viewing the record as a whole, the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Ariza, 167 F.R.D. at 133, citing Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir.1988).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

Because disposition of the motion for summary judgment has consequences that bear on the analysis of the Objections to the Magistrate Judge's rulings, the Court will address it first.

The Defendants have framed each of their arguments for summary judgment in accordance with the doctrine of qualified immunity. In an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Mcgurk v. State , No. 00501
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 7, 2011
    ...enforcement objective exists) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 956, 127 S.Ct. 417, 166 L.Ed.2d 274 (2006); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167–68 (D.Colo.2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner's mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for F......
  • Murphy v. Lamborn, Civil Action 21-cv-00071-RM-KMT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • January 27, 2022
    ...under the 4th Amendment is whether the Plaintiff's legitimate expectations of privacy were somehow exceeded.” Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1168 (D. Colo. 2006). “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be asserted vicariously.” United States v. Paetsch, 782 F.3d 1......
  • Com. v. Gibbs, No. 1491 WDA 2008
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • September 14, 2009
    ...no reasonable expectation of privacy in deck attached to home where it constituted part of the principal entryway); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167-68 (D.Colo.2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner's mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for Fo......
  • Bunch v. Snow, Civil Action No. 18-cv-02508-MSK-SKC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 17, 2020
    ...forward with evidence that establishes at the time of his arrest, the arresting officers lacked probable cause. Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1164 (D.Colo. 2006). "To determine whether an officer hadPage 16 probable cause to arrest an individual, [courts] examine the events leadi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Mcgurk v. State , No. 00501
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 7, 2011
    ...enforcement objective exists) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 956, 127 S.Ct. 417, 166 L.Ed.2d 274 (2006); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167–68 (D.Colo.2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner's mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for F......
  • Murphy v. Lamborn, Civil Action 21-cv-00071-RM-KMT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado
    • January 27, 2022
    ...under the 4th Amendment is whether the Plaintiff's legitimate expectations of privacy were somehow exceeded.” Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1168 (D. Colo. 2006). “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be asserted vicariously.” United States v. Paetsch, 782 F.3d 1......
  • Com. v. Gibbs, No. 1491 WDA 2008
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • September 14, 2009
    ...no reasonable expectation of privacy in deck attached to home where it constituted part of the principal entryway); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167-68 (D.Colo.2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner's mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for Fo......
  • Bunch v. Snow, Civil Action No. 18-cv-02508-MSK-SKC
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 17, 2020
    ...forward with evidence that establishes at the time of his arrest, the arresting officers lacked probable cause. Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1164 (D.Colo. 2006). "To determine whether an officer hadPage 16 probable cause to arrest an individual, [courts] examine the events leadi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT