Thomas v. Bible
| Citation | 896 F.2d 555 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-15323,88-15323 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carl Wesley THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul A. BIBLE, Jerry Lockhart, Barton Jacka, The present members of the Nevada Gaming Commission in their official capacity, John O'Reilly, Robert Peccole, Robert Lewis, Ken Gragson, Betty Vogler, and the present members of the Nevada Gaming Control Board in their official capacity, Jerey Cunningham, Michael Rumbolz, Dennis Amerine, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Before NORRIS, DAVID R. THOMPSON, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Thomas timely appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees in his action under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1985. He alleges that members of the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his fourteenth amendment rights under the equal protection and due process clauses, by improperly including him in a list of persons excluded from licensed gaming establishments in Nevada. We affirm.
The Nevada legislature has declared that the exclusion of certain persons from licensed gaming establishments is necessary to maintain the strict regulation of licensed gaming. See Nev. Gaming Comm'n Reg. 28 (1988). Persons are nominated for an exclusion list by the Nevada Gaming Control Board ("Board"), an administrative agency that serves as an investigative and prosecutorial body. See Nev.Rev.Stat. Secs. 463.030-.080; 463.140 (1987). The Nevada Gaming Commission ("Commission"), a lay administrative agency that functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, makes final decisions on whether to add the Board's recommended candidates to the exclusion list. Id. at Secs. 463.022-.029; 463.151-.155.
Until 1979, Thomas held a Nevada gaming license and owned two small casinos--the Bingo Palace and Slots-of-Fun. On June 25, 1979, the Board moved to revoke Thomas's gaming licenses as a result of information obtained from certain FBI wiretaps in which Thomas was heard instructing several organized crime figures about skimming operations in Las Vegas casinos. The Board also initiated an exclusion proceeding against Thomas, separate from the license revocation action. The Board, however, withdrew Thomas's nomination for exclusion because the wiretap tapes were unavailable due to a motion to suppress.
The tapes became available on May 31, 1983, and on October 10, 1983, a federal court convicted Thomas on ten felony counts arising out of his involvement with skimming in the Tropicana Hotel and Casino. See United States v. DeLuna, 763 F.2d 897 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980 (1985) ("Tropicana ").
In 1984, the Board again nominated Thomas for the exclusion list. Board agent Carr twice contacted Thomas's attorney asking whether Thomas would agree to be interviewed in connection with the Tropicana case. Thomas's attorney responded that Thomas would not be interviewed "under any circumstances."
On December 5, 1985, Thomas filed a motion for reduction of his fifteen-year sentence in Tropicana before Judge Albert Lee Stevens, Jr., who had presided in the trial of that case. On January 14, 1986, former Board chairman Jacka informed Judge Stevens that Thomas would not testify before the Board. Judge Stevens nonetheless reduced Thomas's sentence to two years with eligibility for immediate parole.
On March 21, 1986, the Board entered an order placing Thomas's name on the exclusion list. The Board did not include others who had also been convicted in Tropicana; nor did the Board include other persons who had been convicted of gaming-related offenses. After the Board notified him of its action, Thomas requested a hearing, as well as discovery of all evidentiary materials the Board had relied upon in making its decision.
On November 12, 1986, Thomas requested the custodian of records to produce documents relating to the identity of persons who hold a Nevada gaming license or work card and who have also been convicted of a felony. On November 18, 1986, the Board filed a motion for a protective order to preclude production on the grounds of confidentiality and the burden of production. On December 5, Commission Chairman Bible denied the Board's motion in part and Thomas was given a summary of documents from July 1982 to the date of the discovery request.
The Commission hearing on Thomas's candidacy for the list commenced on December 17, 1986. Thomas did not attend and no witnesses spoke on his behalf. Oral argument was set for January 22, 1987. At argument, Thomas's attorney did not present additional evidence, although the Board did through deputy attorney general Rumbolz. The Commission then voted unanimously to place Thomas's name on the exclusion list. The Commission granted and later extended a stay of its order to allow Thomas to file this action in federal court.
Thomas contends that the Board violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination by putting his name on the list for his refusal to cooperate with the Board. We disagree.
The fifth amendment provides that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const., amend. V. Thomas assumes that he properly asserted his fifth amendment privilege when he chose to remain silent.
A defendant is not excused from answering merely because he believes that in so doing he would incriminate himself. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). It is for the court to decide whether his silence is justified by examining the implications of the questions and the setting in which they are asked. Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486-87 (citing Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951)); see also Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 50 (1968). Proper application of the Hoffman standard requires that a fifth amendment claim be raised in response to specific questions. United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 991 (1982). A blanket refusal to answer any question is insufficient unless the court has special knowledge of the case and the testimony expected from the witness. See id.
Here, nothing in the record indicates that Thomas ever effectively invoked his fifth amendment privilege. The Board twice asked Thomas to cooperate in its investigation. Thomas responded only that he would not be interviewed "under any circumstances." He did not meet with any Board member, nor did he communicate a claim of privilege in response to a specific question. He did not even attend his hearing before the Commission.
Thomas claims that through his actions he asserted a blanket privilege. His fear of self-incrimination, however, is speculative. Thomas had already been convicted in the Tropicana case and had been granted immunity in the Argent case. A hypothetical situation giving rise to a fear of criminal prosecution is an insufficient basis for a fifth amendment claim. Boday v. United States, 759 F.2d 1472, 1474-75 (9th Cir.1985). We are not persuaded that Thomas invoked the fifth amendment here.
Thomas contends that his right to equal protection was violated. Essentially, he argues that the Board singled out and prosecuted him because he invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In an attempt to support this argument of selective prosecution, Thomas claims that other similarly situated individuals were not placed on the list and that the Board had an improper motive in prosecuting him.
To support a claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, Thomas must show that others who are similarly situated and committing the same acts have not been prosecuted. United States v. Ness, 652 F.2d 890, 892 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126 (1981). He must also demonstrate that the government's prosecution is in bad faith, or selectively based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, or the exercise of a constitutional right. United States v. McWilliams, 730 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
Equal protection does not require identity of treatment. It requires only that a classification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulch Gaming, Inc. v. State of SD
......Dougherty, Dougherty & Dougherty, Steven Sanford, Cadwell, Sanford & Deibert, Sioux Falls, S.D., for plaintiff. . Thomas C. Adam, May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson, Pierre, S.D., for defendant. . Thomas H. Harmon, Tieszen Law Office, Pierre, S.D., for Black ...v. Goldfarb, 464 F.Supp. 565 (E.D.Mich. 1979) (Nevada gaming license not a property right that implicates due process); Thomas v. Bible, 694 F.Supp. 750, 760 (D.Nev.1988), aff'd 896 F.2d 555 (9th Cir.1990) (held that candidate for "List" excluding persons from Nevada casinos was not ......
- Thomas v. Bible
-
Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb Farms, Inc.
...97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) ("There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case."); Thomas v. Bible , 896 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) ("There is ... no constitutional right to pretrial discovery in administrative proceedings."). Indeed, there was no ......