Harris v. Matthews

Filing 106

ORDER. The Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 102 filed 7/25/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 94 filed 5/27/2011, is GRANTED. JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Mark Al len Matthews, and against the plaintiff, Dexter Harris. The defendant is AWARDED his costs. The Trial Preparation Conference set for 8/19/2011, at 3:30 p.m. and the jury trial set to begin on 9/12/2011, at 8:30 a.m. both are VACATED. This case is DISMISSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/9/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02322-REB-MEH
DEXTER HARRIS
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ALLEN MATTHEWS, Denver Police Detective,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before the court on 1) the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [#94]1 filed May 27, 2011; and 2) the Amended Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge [#102] filed July 25, 2011. The plaintiff filed objections [#105]
to the recommendation. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and grant
the motion for summary judgment.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed and have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Because the plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall
1

“[#94]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned, and, thus, I
approve and adopt it as an order of this court.
The plaintiff, Dexter Harris, alleges that the defendant, Mark Matthews,
improperly revealed to inmates in a Denver jail that the plaintiff had testified against
certain defendants in a murder prosecution. The two defendants in the murder
prosecution were aware of the plaintiff’s identity and were present when the plaintiff
testified against them. The plaintiff testified in the murder prosecution in 2005 or 2006,
and in a separate proceeding in 2009. On November 16, 2008, Harris was being held in
the Denver City Jail on charges unrelated to the murder prosecution. Harris alleges that
on that date, defendant, Mark Matthews, a detective with the Denver Police, was
present with Harris in the Denver City Jail. At that time, Matthews allegedly revealed to
other inmates in the jail that Harris was acting as a witness for the prosecution.
Approximately four months later, in March, 2009, Harris says he learned from
another jail inmate that their was a “hit” out on Harris. On August 24, 2009, more than
nine months after Matthews allegedly released information about Harris to other
inmates, Harris had a conversation with gang members allegedly affiliated with the two
defendants in the murder prosecution. This conversation concerned the “hit” that was
out on Harris. Later that day, Harris was kicked in the back while he was on a flight of
stairs in the jail. Harris was able to grab a railing to prevent himself from falling all of the
way down the stairs, but he did suffer some physical injuries as a result of his fall
partially down the stairs. Harris does not know who kicked him and no one said
anything to Harris immediately before or after he was kicked. A few weeks after he was
kicked down the stairs, Harris was put on medication to deal with the “unrelenting fear”
2

that he “suffers daily.” Response [#99], Exhibit 1 (Harris Deposition), 116: ll. 15-25;
117: ll. 1-3.
Previously, this court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
[#37], in an order [#56] filed August 20, 2010. In that order, the court concluded that,
based on the evidence in the record, no reasonable fact finder could find that the
defendant’s alleged actions were a cause of the assault suffered by Harris when he was
kicked down the stairs on August 24, 2009. Based on that conclusion, I granted the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Harris appealed the resulting judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed this
court’s “judgment in favor of Matthews on Harris’ claim that Matthews’ disclosure
caused the August 2009 assault.” Harris v. Matthews, 417 Fed.Appx. 758, 764 (10th
Cir. 2011). However, the Tenth Circuit remanded Harris’s claim for “mental and
emotional damages for further proceedings” consistent with the court’s opinion. Id.
In his present motion for summary judgment, Matthews argues that Harris has
not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude
that Matthews alleged disclosure in November, 2008, caused Harris’s alleged mental
and emotional damages. Reviewing the evidence in the record, the magistrate judge
concluded, correctly, that “no reasonable juror could find that Harris suffered emotional
injury as a direct result of Matthews’ “snitch” disclosure in November 2008.”
Recommendation [#102], p. 13. The magistrate judge concluded also that Harris has
not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude
that Matthews’ disclosure set in motion a series of events that caused a deprivation of
Harris’s constitutional rights. Id., p. 14. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded
that Harris has failed to come forward with any evidence that demonstrates a genuine
3

issue of material fact concerning whether or not Matthews’ alleged “disclosure was the
event that launched the threat of a “hit,” the conversation with gang members, the kick
down the stairs and the subsequent emotional injury . . . .” Id. I agree. Based on the
evidence in the record, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that Matthews’ alleged
disclosure was a cause or the cause of Harris’s alleged “mental and emotional
damages.” Harris v. Matthews, 417 Fed.Appx. 758, 764 (10th Cir. 2011).
The magistrate judge notes also that Harris cannot assert a claim “for mental and
emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Harris’s claim here is solely for mental and emotional injury suffered
while in custody. Thus, even if Harris had produced some evidence of causation, he
would not be entitled to damages for his mental and emotional injury. In its opinion in
Harris v. Matthews, the Tenth Circuit noted that Harris might be entitled to declaratory
relief or possibly to punitive damages. Id. at 764 n. 9. Absent evidence of causation,
however, Harris is not entitled to such relief.
I have reviewed carefully the Plaintiff’s Objection To Magistrate Judge
Recommendation [#105]filed August 3, 2011. I conclude that the plaintiff’s stated
objections are without merit and, therefore, I overrule his objections. I find and conclude
that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, conclusions of law, and
recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
[#102] filed July 25, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in the Plaintiff’s Objection To Magistrate Judge
Recommendation [#105] filed August 3, 2011, are OVERRULED;
4

3. That the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#94] filed May 27,
2011, is GRANTED;
4. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Mark Allen
Matthews, and against the plaintiff, Dexter Harris;
5. That the defendant is AWARDED his costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the
Court under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1;
6. That the Trial Preparation Conference set for August 19, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.
and the jury trial set to begin on September 12, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. both are VACATED;
and
7. That this case is DISMISSED.
Dated August 9, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

5