Vreeland v. Schwartz, 1:13-cv-03515

Plaintiff Delmart E.J.M. Vreeland, II, a Colorado Department of Corrections inmate, brought § 1983 claims including retaliation claims against a CDOC legal assistant, Celia Schwartz, for alleged denial of access to legal materials.
One retaliation claim (reading/sealing of attorney package) was dismissed as time-barred; another alleges denial of access to tapes/videos in the prison law library.
Plaintiff served subpoenas on third parties (Douglas County deputy Dea Aragon and the 18th Judicial District District Attorney’s Office) seeking discovery materials and recorded prison telephone calls he claims relate to his legal mail and retaliation claims.
Magistrate Judge Tafoya granted motions to quash both subpoenas, concluding the requested materials were irrelevant to the asserted retaliation claims and that plaintiff appeared to be attempting to relitigate his underlying conviction.
Plaintiff filed timely objections arguing entitlement to the materials under Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 and the Federal Rules; the district court reviewed under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard for magistrate nondispositive orders.
The district court overruled the objections, holding Rule 16 does not authorize post-conviction production and that subpoenas may be quashed when sought materials are irrelevant to the civil claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 entitles plaintiff to post-trial discovery from third parties	Rule 16 gives a right to the documents plaintiff seeks	Rule 16 governs pretrial discovery only and does not authorize post-trial production	Denied — Rule 16 does not apply to post-trial discovery (Roybal)
Whether the subpoenaed discovery materials are relevant to plaintiff's retaliation claims	Materials are necessary to prove the contents of the mail and resulting retaliation/damages	Materials are irrelevant to whether defendants retaliated or to what was allegedly in the package	Denied — Magistrate correctly found lack of relevance; quash permissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45/26 principles
Whether plaintiff’s subpoenas improperly seek to relitigate his criminal conviction	Plaintiff needs materials for civil retaliation claims, not to attack conviction	Subpoenas appear aimed at attacking underlying conviction and are unrelated to civil claims	Denied — Court agreed subpoenas sought materials beyond relevant civil discovery and suggested collateral attack on conviction
Standard of review for objections to magistrate non-dispositive orders	Objections require de novo review	District court reviews for clear error or contrary to law under Rule 72(a)	Court applied Rule 72(a) and found no clear error; overruled objections

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts liberally construe pro se filings)
Roybal v. People, 493 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1972) (Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 applies only to pretrial discovery)
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (objections to magistrate orders must be timely and specific)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court review of magistrate findings is not required absent objection)
Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard of review when no proper objection to magistrate decision)