No. DA 06-0079
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 327N
RONALD W. VAUGHN, JR.,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
GALLATIN COUNTY, et al.
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DV 2004-326,
Honorable Holly B. Brown, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Ronald W. Vaughn, Jr., (pro se), Deer Lodge, Montana
For Respondent:
Kristin N. Hansen, Moore, O’Connell & Refling, P.C., Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 1, 2006
Decided: December 12, 2006
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. 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 Ronald Vaughn, Jr., an inmate at the Montana State Prison, appeals, pro se, from
the District Court’s September 30, 2005 Order and Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment; Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint With Prejudice.
¶3 In this cause, Vaughn filed a pro se complaint against Gallatin County and the
Gallatin County Public Defenders Office alleging that his right to attorney-client
confidentiality had been violated by the Defendants. Vaughn amended his complaint and
added a claim for violation of his right to equal protection of the laws. The Defendants
answered and, ultimately, moved for summary judgment. The Public Defenders Office
was dismissed from Vaughn’s suit on April 27, 2005, and on September 30, 2005, the
District Court granted the remaining defendant Gallatin County’s summary judgment
motion and dismissed Vaughn’s suit with prejudice. 1
¶4 Vaughn filed his lawsuit claiming that, while he was incarcerated at the Gallatin
County Detention Center, his calls to his former attorney at the Public Defenders Office
were recorded. It appears that during maintenance of the Gallatin County Detention
Center’s phone system, EVERCOM deleted the “private” parameters which had been
1
While it appears that EVERCOM Phone Systems was a named defendant in Vaughn’s lawsuit,
the record reflects that EVERCOM was never served with a summons, nor did it ever appear in
the lawsuit.
2
assigned to the telephone number of the Gallatin County Public Defenders Office as well
as for the numbers of various inmates’ private attorneys. Calls made by an inmate were
preceded by a warning tag line that stated: “This telephone conversation is recorded and
may be monitored by department staff.”
¶5 Having reviewed the record in this case, we determine that the District Court did
not err in granting the Defendant summary judgment, as no genuine issues of material
fact existed and because Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law. We also conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Vaughn’s § 1983
claims for failure to show any injury. And, finally, we conclude that Vaughn was not
improperly denied access to the courts for lack of accurate, adequate legal resources at
the Gallatin County Jail.
¶6 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. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us
that the appeal is without merit because the court’s findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence, and because the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled
Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶7 Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s Order and Opinion Granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint
With Prejudice.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
3
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4