Clapp v. Tobin ( 2023 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 22-1350
KEVIN S. CLAPP,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TROOPER BRUCE TOBIN, ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Allison D. Burroughs, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Gelpí, Selya, and Montecalvo,
Circuit Judges.
Robert C. Johnson, Jr., with whom Johnson & Associates was on
brief, for appellant.
Brian Rogal, with whom Rogal & Donnellan, P.C. was on brief,
for appellee Tobin.
Joseph G. Donnellan, with whom Rogal & Donnellan, P.C. was on
brief, for appellee Kearns.
Lorena Galvez, with whom Joseph P. Kittredge and Rafanelli
Kittredge, P.C. were on brief, for appellee Brooks.
Joseph P. Kittredge, with whom Lorena Galvez and Rafanelli
Kittredge, P.C. were on brief, for appellee Tully.
August 4, 2023
SELYA, Circuit Judge. Not every appeal produces a need
for a full-dress opinion. Some appeals present only issues that
are either factbound or context-specific and involve nothing more
than the application of settled principles of law to particular
circumstances. This is such a case.
In the district court, plaintiff-appellant Kevin S.
Clapp brought suit against seventy-nine defendants. After
compendious pretrial proceedings, the herd of defendants was
thinned out substantially to four.1 The district court presided
over the ensuing trial with care and circumspection, and the case
went to the jury against the remaining four defendants (all
Massachusetts state troopers). The gravamen of the plaintiff's
amended complaint was the allegation that the troopers, jointly
and severally, had acted under color of state law so as to violate
the plaintiff's civil rights through, inter alia, the use of
excessive force. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The jury found in favor of all of the defendants,
returning take-nothing verdicts. The plaintiff did not move for
1 The plaintiff has not appealed from any of the district
court's rulings regarding any of the other seventy-five
defendants.
- 3 -
a new trial but, rather, filed this notice of appeal advancing
what he describes as seven separate claims of error.2
We have reviewed the entire record and the parties'
briefs. In addition, we have heard oral argument. After careful
consideration, we conclude that the appeal presents no substantial
issue of law and that, therefore, summary disposition is in order.
We explain briefly.
All of the plaintiff's claims of error implicate the
same standard of review: abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ira
Green, Inc. v. Mil. Sales & Serv. Co., 775 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir.
2014) (rulings admitting or excluding evidence are reviewed for
abuse of discretion); Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of P.R., 445 F.3d 50,
58 (1st Cir. 2006) (ruling on motion to file amended complaint is
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Abuse of discretion is by any
measure a deferential standard of review. See United States v.
Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60, 80 (1st Cir. 2021). As we noted
many years ago, "'[a]buse of discretion' is a phrase which sounds
worse than it really is." Aggarwal v. Ponce Sch. of Med., 745
F.2d 723, 727 (1st Cir. 1984) (quoting In re Josephson, 218 F.2d
174, 182 (1st Cir. 1954)).
2 Refined to bare essence, some of the plaintiff's claims of
error overlap, that is, they hinge on the same evidentiary
predicate.
- 4 -
Here, the challenged rulings, without exception, rest on
well-established precedent. See, e.g., Palmer v. Champion Mortg.,
465 F.3d 24, 30-31 (1st Cir. 2006) (motion to amend may be denied
on grounds of undue delay); United States v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160
F.3d 768, 775 (1st Cir. 1998) ("[A] district court has discretion
to exclude from evidence acquittals or other favorable outcomes of
prior state court proceedings involving the same subject
matter."). Moreover, the district court's interpretation and
application of these authorities were both sound and within the
compass of its discretion. Given the unexceptional nature of the
district court's rulings, it would serve no useful purpose to
recite book and verse.
We need go no further. For aught that appears, the
plaintiff had a fair trial before an impartial jury, presided over
even-handedly by a conscientious judge. And he has had a full and
fair opportunity to air his claims of error before this court. We
have found those claims wanting: they are context-specific, they
implicate no new legal principles, and the district court's
challenged rulings must be viewed, on appeal, through a deferential
glass. Thus, we readily conclude that the plaintiff has failed to
identify any abuse of the district court's wide discretion, and we
summarily affirm the judgment below.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
- 5 -