Boese v. MacDonald , 2006 MT 176N ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                        No. 05-560
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2006 MT 176N
    DOUGLAS BOESE,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    JAMES MacDONALD,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:            The District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Toole, Cause No. DV 2005-027,
    Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Douglas Boese, pro se, Deer Lodge, Montana
    For Respondent:
    David M. McLean, Ryan C. Willmore; Browning,
    Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Missoula, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: May 10, 2006
    Decided: August 1, 2006
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court 1996
    Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum
    decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document, its
    case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this
    Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
    Montana Reports.
    ¶2     Douglas Boese appeals the judgment of the District Court for the Ninth
    Judicial District, Toole County, affirming a decision of the Justice Court in favor
    of defendant James MacDonald. We affirm.
    ¶3     We address the following issues on appeal:
    ¶4     1. Whether the District Court correctly decided that Boese’s right to due
    process was not violated by not having all witness statements available.
    ¶5     2. Whether the District Court correctly decided that Boese’s right to due
    process was not violated by not ensuring that all witnesses named on Boese’s
    witness list were present at trial.
    Factual and Procedural Background
    ¶6      Boese was an inmate at the Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC) in
    Shelby.    In December 2004, in response to an anonymous kite alleging that
    Boese’s cell contained excess blankets, CCC staff conducted a search of Boese’s
    cell. After the search, Boese contended that a garbage bag containing his legal
    2
    files was confiscated and later destroyed. Boese did not challenge the search of
    his cell. Instead, he filed an action in the Toole County Justice Court, Small
    Claims Division, against MacDonald, the warden of CCC, seeking relief for the
    alleged destruction of his legal files.
    ¶7     On March 10, 2005, Boese filed a document with the Justice Court entitled
    “Motion for Order Directing Defendant James MacDonald to turn over all
    previously requested Documents.”          In that document, Boese alleged that the
    parties agreed at the February 2, 2005 pre-trial hearing in this matter to collect and
    exchange witness statements.       However, Boese provided no evidence of this
    agreement and MacDonald denied ever receiving a request from Boese for
    statements of staff witnesses. The Justice Court denied Boese’s motion.
    ¶8     On March 17, 2005, Boese filed a document entitled “Motion for Witness
    Subpoenas” wherein he requested that the court issue subpoenas to those
    individuals designated as “staff” witnesses on his witness list. Boese failed to
    provide subpoenas to the court for the Judge’s signature, however.
    ¶9     A trial in this matter was conducted on March 31, 2005. The Justice Court
    found Boese’s testimony not credible and found in favor of MacDonald.
    Thereafter, Boese appealed to the District Court. Both parties submitted written
    arguments to the District Court and on July 18, 2005, that court issued its written
    decision affirming the lower court and finding in favor of MacDonald. Boese
    appeals.
    3
    ¶10    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph
    3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides
    for memorandum opinions.
    Issue 1.
    ¶11 Whether the District Court correctly decided that Boese’s right to due
    process was not violated by not having all witness statements available.
    ¶12    Boese claims that at the pre-trial conference in this matter, the Justice Court
    ordered the parties to collect and exchange witness statements and that
    MacDonald failed to give him copies of the witness statements of CCC staff.
    MacDonald argues, on the other hand, that Boese failed to request the witness
    statements and that Boese failed to cite any authority in support of his argument
    that he is entitled to said statements.
    ¶13    In his brief on appeal, Boese cites to Serrano v. Francis (9th Cir. 2003),
    
    345 F.3d 1071
    , cert. denied, 
    543 U.S. 825
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 43
    , 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 37
     (2004),
    for his contention that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that prisoners are
    entitled to certain due process protections including the right to call witnesses and
    to have written statements.      As MacDonald points out in his response brief,
    Serrano actually states that prisoners have the right to call witnesses and “to have
    a written statement by the fact-finder as to the evidence relied upon and the
    reasons for the disciplinary action taken.”          Serrano, 345 F.3d at 1077-78
    (emphasis added). Moreover, Serrano dealt with a prisoner’s rights in relation to a
    4
    charge of a disciplinary violation. MacDonald correctly points out that rather than
    being a charge of a disciplinary violation, this is a civil claim and, as such,
    Serrano does not apply.
    ¶14    Likewise, the other cases cited by Boese, Alcala v. Woodford (9th Cir.
    2003), 
    334 F.3d 862
    , and Taylor v. Illinois (1988), 
    484 U.S. 400
    , 
    108 S. Ct. 646
    , 
    98 L. Ed. 2d 798
    , also do not apply. Both cases are criminal cases concerning the issue
    of excluding witnesses and deal with the right of an accused to present witnesses
    in his or her defense.
    ¶15    Here, Boese failed to provide any authority in support of his argument that
    he was entitled to the witness statements of CCC staff.
    Issue 2.
    ¶16 Whether the District Court correctly decided that Boese’s right to due
    process was not violated by not ensuring that all witnesses named on Boese’s
    witness list were present at trial.
    ¶17    In his brief on appeal, Boese faults the clerk of court for not filling out and
    serving subpoenas on all his named witnesses. MacDonald maintains that it was
    Boese’s duty to prepare and serve subpoenas to his witnesses and that Boese failed
    to do so.
    ¶18    “It shall be the duty of a party obtaining any order, judgment, warrant
    summons, subpoena or like order to present the same in written form for the
    signature of the judge at the time of applying for the same.”             Rule 8(a),
    M.U.R.J.C.C.     Boese did file a motion to subpoena witnesses in this case.
    However, he failed to provide written subpoenas for the judge to sign.
    5
    Furthermore, Boese had a duty to deliver his subpoenas to the sheriff or other
    qualified person for service and a duty to cause the subpoenas to be served. Rules
    10(a) and 9(b), M.U.R.J.C.C. Boese failed on both counts.
    ¶19    In addition, Boese asks that we remand this case to Justice Court for a new
    trial or, in the alternative, that we order MacDonald to pay Boese $450.00 to
    replace his legal files. We have previously stated that “a judgment for damages
    must be supported by substantial evidence that is not mere guess or speculation,
    although mathematical precision is not required.” In re Marriage of Mease, 
    2004 MT 59
    , ¶ 42, 
    320 Mont. 229
    , ¶ 42, 
    92 P.3d 1148
    , ¶ 42 (citing Cremer v. Cremer
    Rodeo Land & Livestock Co. (1981), 
    192 Mont. 208
    , 214, 
    627 P.2d 1199
    , 1202).
    “Proof of damages must consist of a reasonable basis for computation and the best
    evidence obtainable under the circumstances which will enable a judge to arrive at
    a reasonably close estimate of the loss.” Mease, ¶ 42 (citing Smith v. Zepp (1977),
    
    173 Mont. 358
    , 370, 
    567 P.2d 923
    , 930). Boese failed to provide any tangible
    costs of alleged damages.
    Conclusion
    ¶20    Based on the foregoing, we hold that Boese’s right to due process was not
    violated in this case either by the State’s failure to make witness statements
    available to him or by the failure of the Justice Court to ensure that all of the
    witnesses named on Boese’s witness list were present at trial. We also hold that
    because Boese failed to provide any tangible replacement costs of his legal files,
    he is not entitled to damages.
    6
    ¶21     Affirmed.
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JOHN WARNER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-560

Citation Numbers: 2006 MT 176N

Filed Date: 8/1/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014