Filed: Dec. 19, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2003 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JERRY WILLIAM DICKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-4073 v. (D.C. No. 2:97-CV-782-TC) J. MERRICK, Lieutenant; (D. Utah) MATTINGLEY, Sgt.; BEEMUS, Lt.; NELSON, Officer; GAMVROULAS, Officer; RENFRO, Officer, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Jerry Dickey, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2003 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JERRY WILLIAM DICKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-4073 v. (D.C. No. 2:97-CV-782-TC) J. MERRICK, Lieutenant; (D. Utah) MATTINGLEY, Sgt.; BEEMUS, Lt.; NELSON, Officer; GAMVROULAS, Officer; RENFRO, Officer, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Jerry Dickey, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s ..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 19 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JERRY WILLIAM DICKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-4073
v. (D.C. No. 2:97-CV-782-TC)
J. MERRICK, Lieutenant; (D. Utah)
MATTINGLEY, Sgt.; BEEMUS, Lt.;
NELSON, Officer; GAMVROULAS,
Officer; RENFRO, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Jerry Dickey, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We exercise jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff’s suit arises from beatings that he suffered at the hands of other
inmates on October 16, 1995, and April 30, 1996, at the Salt Lake Metro Jail,
where he was incarcerated while awaiting trial for murder. Defendants were jail
officials at the time. Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect him from his
fellow inmates.
The United States District Court for the District of Utah, following
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), ordered a report on the
incidents. After receiving the report, the court granted summary judgment to
Defendants. The district court held that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust available
administrative remedies on his claim arising from the April 30, 1996, assault, and
that Plaintiff could not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his safety by jail
officials prior to the October 16, 1995, assault. We must reverse and remand,
however, because Defendants never filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s appeal presents four issues. Plaintiff contends that (1) he
exhausted all available remedies on his claims; (2) he has adequately
demonstrated Defendants’ deliberate indifference; (3) he received inadequate
notice of summary judgment requirements and did not receive Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment; and (4) the district court improperly denied his request for
-2-
appointed counsel. Our resolution of the third issue is sufficient to decide this
appeal.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed his original complaint in October 1997. On December 1,
1997, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff appealed, and on
September 2, 1998, we reversed and remanded, ruling that it was clear from the
record that Plaintiff had exhausted at least one of his six claims, and unclear that
he had failed to exhaust the others. See Dickey v. Kennard, 156 F.3d 1243 (10th
Cir. 1998) (unpublished).
After the district court dismissed certain claims and defendants, Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which Defendants answered. The magistrate judge
subsequently directed Defendants to prepare a Martinez report addressing
Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claims and whether Plaintiff had exhausted
administrative remedies on these claims. The order concluded:
The report shall be filed within forty-five (45) days of this Order and
will clearly state, along with the report, if the defendants are seeking
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The plaintiff may file a response within thirty (30) days
of [service] of the Martinez report.
R., Vol. II, Doc. 64.
-3-
Defendants filed the report on June 16, 2000. On the final page of the
report, Defendants state, “For the foregoing reasons, [Defendants] respectfully
request that the court find that [Plaintiff’s] claim of failure to protect is frivolous
and should be dismissed.” Aplee. App. at 168. But they then add, “If the court
finds insufficient evidence to dismiss [Plaintiff’s] case based upon the filing of
this Martinez report, the defendants will file a Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to [Rule] 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (emphasis
added). Defendants certified that they mailed a copy of the report to Plaintiff on
June 16, 2000.
According to the district court’s docket sheet, the Martinez report was
docketed both as a report and as a motion for summary judgment, apparently on
February 27, 2001. There is no indication in the record on appeal that the district
court ever informed Plaintiff that it would treat the report as a motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the report, and never filed a
response to a motion for summary judgment.
The district court then required Defendants to supplement the Martinez
report to clarify factual issues regarding the grievance process at Salt Lake Metro
Jail. On February 19, 2003, the district court granted summary judgment to
Defendants. The district court denied, without explanation, Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, and Plaintiff timely appealed to this court.
-4-
Notice of Summary Judgment
Plaintiff argues on appeal that “[t]he lower court issued a ruling based on a
motion for summary judgment that I never received or was given useful
instructions on procedures to effect a summary judgment.” Aplt. Br. at 4.
Defendants do not address this argument in their brief. Plaintiff preserved this
issue below when he argued in his motion for reconsideration that he lacked
notice that the district court intended to treat the Martinez report as a motion for
summary judgment.
We have previously stated that “[a] Martinez report is treated like an
affidavit,” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir. 1991), and “Martinez
reports have been used in this circuit almost exclusively to provide the court
preliminary information, furnished by prison administration personnel, in pro se
cases brought by prisoners against prison officials,” Ketchum v. Cruz,
961 F.2d
916, 920 n.3 (10th Cir. 1992). Thus, a Martinez report ordinarily is not a motion,
much less a motion for summary judgment.
But even assuming that there are situations in which a Martinez report may
be construed as a motion, this was not such a case. The magistrate judge
instructed Defendants to “clearly state, along with the report, if the defendants are
seeking summary judgment . . . .” R., Vol II., Doc. 64. Defendants stated, at the
end of the report, “If the court finds insufficient evidence to dismiss [Plaintiff’s]
-5-
case based upon the filing of this Martinez report, the defendants will file a
Motion for Summary Judgment . . . .” Aplee. App. at 168. This was not a clearly
stated motion for summary judgment.
As we wrote in Hall, “[d]istrict courts must take care to insure that pro se
litigants are provided with proper notice regarding the complex procedural issues
involved in summary judgment proceedings.” 935 F.2d at 1111 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Failure to provide proper notice requires reversal here.
Conclusion
REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the appellate filing fee is
GRANTED. We remind Plaintiff that he remains obligated to make partial
payments toward the appellate filing fee until it is paid in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-6-
