Williams v. Matheny
Decision Date | 14 July 2017 |
Docket Number | S-16-0254 |
Citation | 398 P.3d 521 |
Parties | Bruce B. WILLIAMS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Scott MATHENY, as Campbell County Sheriff, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Pro se.
Representing Appellee: Carol Seeger, Campbell County Attorney's Office.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, and KAUTZ, JJ., and CRANFILL, D.J.
[¶1] Mr. Williams submitted a Public Records Request to the Campbell County Sheriff's office requesting a list of the "weapons and or offensive/defensive implements carried on the persons of any officers" involved with the killing of Niki Jo Burtsfield as well as "implements normally carried in an officer[']s vehicle." The Sheriff's office timely responded. Mr. Williams believed he was not provided all of the documents he requested, and made further inquiry. After some additional discussion between Mr. Williams and the Sheriff's office, Mr. Williams filed a "Petition for Reasonable Response Pursuant to § 16-4-202(b) & (c)." The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Scott Matheny, as Campbell County Sheriff. Mr. Williams appeals, requesting that he be allowed to physically inspect the original records. He raises several arguments for the first time on appeal, which we do not consider. Because the issues are moot, we affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Williams states the following issues on appeal verbatim:
This Court restates the issue as follows:
1. Did the district court properly determine Mr. Williams' complaint was moot, dismissing the complaint after the Sheriff moved for summary judgment?
[¶3] On September 22, 2015, Mr. Williams submitted a public records request to the Campbell County Sheriff's office (Sheriff's office). Mr. Williams requested:
[¶4] The Sheriff's office timely responded with the "Annual Patrol Equipment Inventory" of each of the officers involved; Deputies Jeff Mooney, Murel Brink, Ed Holden, Brittany Van Zee, and Corporal Scott Appley.1
Mr. Williams believed the equipment inventory to be responsive only to the first half of his request, and he waited for the rest of the information.
[¶5] On Friday, October 23, 2015, Mr. Williams returned to the Sheriff's office and verbally requested a list of the items carried on the officers' person. Mr. Williams was provided with General Order 302 (G.O. 302), which is an equipment inventory from the Campbell County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure Manual.
[¶6] The Deputy Campbell County Attorney assigned to assist with legal issues of the Sheriff's department, learned that the officers' weapons were purchased personally, and that the make, model and serial number were on the bi-annual qualification sheets of each officer. This information was provided to Mr. Williams.
[¶7] On October 29, 2015, Mr. Williams filed a "Petition for Reasonable Response Pursuant to § 16-4-202(b) & (c)" in district court, regarding his request to the Sheriff's office. He requested that the Sheriff or his "appointed representative do one of the following:"
[¶8] The Sheriff filed a "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Motion to Dismiss" on November 18, 2015. The district court held a hearing on May 11, 2016, and issued an order requiring Mr. Williams to respond to the Sheriff's Rule 4 argument within 10 days, as well as allowing the Sheriff to file alternative pleadings or other information which would convert the matter to a motion for summary judgment within 30 days. Mr. Williams was also permitted to respond to any additional materials. Both parties submitted additional materials, and the district court granted the Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
[¶9] We review a grant of summary judgment entered in response to a declaratory judgment action through our usual standard for review of summary judgments. State ex rel. Arnold v. Ommen , 2009 WY 24, ¶ 13, 201 P.3d 1127, 1132 (Wyo. 2009) ; Voss v. Goodman , 2009 WY 40, ¶ 9, 203 P.3d 415, 419 (Wyo. 2009).
Our review of a district court's summary judgment ruling is de novo , using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. Arnold , ¶ 13, 201 P.3d at 1132 ; W.R.C.P. 56(c). No deference is accorded to the district court on issues of law, and we may affirm the summary judgment on any legal grounds appearing in the record. Voss , ¶ 9, 203 P.3d at 419. "The summary judgment can be sustained only when no genuine issues of material fact are present and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id .
Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Laramie Cty. Sch. Dist. No. One , 2016 WY 113, ¶ 8, 384 P.3d 679, 682 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Cont'l Western Ins. Co. v. Black , 2015 WY 145, ¶ 13, 361 P.3d 841, 845 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting City of Casper v. Holloway , 2015 WY 93, ¶ 28, 354 P.3d 65, 73 (Wyo. 2015) )).
[¶10] The issues Mr. Williams states on appeal differ from the relief he requested of the district court.2 The first issue Mr. Williams identifies on appeal appears to be a new issue; however the requested relief is to physically inspect the files. Mr. Williams did request this relief from the district court. The second, third, and fourth issues Mr. Williams presents on appeal are clearly new issues, and will not be considered. "[W]e generally decline to review issues raised for the first time on appeal." Kordus v. Montes , 2014 WY 146, ¶ 10, 337 P.3d 1138, 1141 (Wyo. 2014) (citing In re Lankford , 2013 WY 65, ¶ 28, 301 P.3d 1092, 1101 (Wyo. 2013) ; Jones v. State , 2006 WY 40, ¶ 7, 132 P.3d 162, 164 (Wyo. 2006) ).
[¶11] This appeal presents no disputed issues of material fact. The Court's only task is to determine if the Sheriff's office was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the district court appropriately granted summary judgment, we look to the same documents as the district court, giving no weight to any legal conclusions. We review the materials in a light most favorable to Mr. Williams because he opposes the motion.
Hatton v. Energy Elec. Co. , 2006 WY 151, ¶ 9, 148 P.3d 8, 12–13 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Cook v. Shoshone First Bank , 2006 WY 13, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 886, 890 (Wyo. 2006), quoting Jones v. Schabron , 2005 WY 65, ¶ 10, 113 P.3d 34, 37–38 (Wyo. 2005) (internal citations omitted)).
[¶12] Distilling out Mr. Williams' "strong"3 commentary, it is clear to this Court that the Sheriff met his burden and established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The burden then shifts to Mr. Williams to prove the existence of a disputed material fact. The evidence opposing a prima facie case for summary judgment must be competent and admissible. See Cook , ¶ 12, 126 P.3d at 890 (citing Jones , ¶ 10, 113 P.3d at 37–38 ). Speculation, conjecture, and assumptions are not sufficient to establish a dispute over a material fact. Id .
After a movant has adequately supported the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing there are genuine issues of material fact. Wyo. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ; Hyatt v. Big Horn Sch. Dist. No. 4 , 636 P.2d 525, 528 (Wyo. 1981). The opposing party must affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and cannot rely only upon allegations and pleadings ..., and conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient to satisfy the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guy v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr.
...by a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties.’ " Williams v. Matheny , 2017 WY 85, ¶ 15, 398 P.3d 521, 527 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting In re Guardianship of MEO , 2006 WY 87, ¶ 27, 138 P.3d 1145, 1153-54 (Wyo. 2006) ).4 "However, there are three exceptions to the o......
-
Bogdanski v. Budzik
...Still, this Court may affirm summary judgment on any legal basis supported by the record, Williams v. Matheny , 2017 WY 85, ¶ 9, 398 P.3d 521, 524 (Wyo. 2017), and the record in this case supports the application of Celotex and affirming on that basis. Additionally, while the parties did no......
-
Rammell v. Mountainaire Animal Clinic, P.C., S-18-0239
...our decision to uphold the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal rulings. See Williams v. Matheny , 2017 WY 85, ¶ 15, 398 P.3d 521, 527 (Wyo. 2017) (under the mootness doctrine, courts do not rule on issues that will have no impact on the parties). This includes Dr. Rammell’s chal......
-
Dimick v. Hopkinson, S-17-0318
...opposing a prima facie case for summary judgment must be competent and admissible." Williams v. Matheny , 2017 WY 85, ¶ 12, 398 P.3d 521, 526 (Wyo. 2017). The Dimicks’ sole piece of evidence upon which they claim a genuine issue of material fact—the Registration Form—would not be admissible......