Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Mexican citizen entered the United States as a child on a temporary tourist visa in 1998 and remained after his visa expired. In 2009, he suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident, resulting in significant cognitive and physical disabilities, including impaired memory, judgment, and behavioral control. Following the accident, he had several encounters with law enforcement, leading to arrests and convictions for various offenses. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2018 for overstaying his visa. He conceded removability but sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that, due to his disabilities, he would likely be institutionalized and tortured if returned to Mexico.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him credible but denied CAT relief, concluding that although he might face harm in Mexico, the evidence did not show it would be inflicted with the specific intent to cause severe pain or suffering as required by the CAT. The IJ determined any likely mistreatment would result from neglect, lack of resources, or insufficient training rather than purposeful torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, accepting the IJ’s findings and further concluding that the Mexican government’s inconsistent efforts to address abuses did not amount to acquiescence in torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s order. It held that the BIA applied the correct legal standards for specific intent and governmental acquiescence, and that substantial evidence supported the factual findings. The court found no error in the agency’s treatment of the applicant’s and his mother’s testimony or in its assessment of the risk of torture. The court accordingly denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Botello v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A former oncology account manager for a pharmaceutical company was terminated after refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The employee had worked remotely throughout his tenure, and when the mandate was announced, he sought both medical and religious exemptions. In support of his medical exemption, he submitted a doctor’s note referencing permanent nerve damage from a prior vaccine injury and indicating increased risk from COVID-19 vaccination. The company denied both exemption requests and cited business necessity and client demands for vaccination as the reason for his termination.After receiving authorization from the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau to pursue his claims, the employee filed suit in federal court, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) due to his medical condition and religion, as well as a claim for common law retaliatory discharge. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed most claims without prejudice, concluding he failed to plausibly allege a disability or serious medical condition affecting a major life activity, failed to show a causal link between protected activity and termination, and did not identify a specific public policy violated by his discharge. The court also denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment and declined his request for leave to amend the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. It held that the employee’s complaint did not sufficiently allege a disability or serious medical condition under the NMHRA because it did not identify a major life activity that was substantially limited. The court also found that the complaint failed to establish a causal connection for retaliation and did not identify a specific public policy to support a common law claim. The Tenth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration and amendment. View "Spinelli v. Coherus Biosciences" on Justia Law

A group of activists and the Chinook Center, a nonprofit organization, participated in a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. After the march, the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) launched an investigation targeting some participants. CSPD obtained three search warrants: two related to Jacqueline Armendariz, a protester accused of obstructing an officer by dropping her bike, and one targeting the Chinook Center’s Facebook account. The first Armendariz warrant authorized a search of her home and seizure of her electronic devices. The second allowed a search of data on those devices, including a broad keyword search. The third warrant authorized obtaining all posts, messages, and events from the Chinook Center’s Facebook account for a seven-day period.Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the City, individual CSPD officers, the FBI, and others, alleging that the warrants were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. They also brought state-law claims, and the Chinook Center alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court granted motions to dismiss all claims, concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, the plaintiffs failed to allege plausible constitutional violations, and that municipal liability was unsupported.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the warrant to seize Armendariz’s electronic devices. However, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers for the second warrant (searching data on Armendariz’s devices) and the Facebook warrant, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged these warrants were overbroad in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also reversed the dismissal of related claims against the City and remanded for further proceedings. The dismissals of Armendariz's claims against the FBI and the United States were affirmed. View "Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

The defendant orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to secure loans and investments, ostensibly to finance a truck stop in Deming, New Mexico. The operation involved multiple domestic and foreign corporations, and the defendant concealed his control and financial interest in the truck stop using aliases and shell companies. Funds obtained through fraud were not used as promised, and the defendant misled lenders and investors regarding his identity and financial history. The scheme also involved directing loan proceeds to offshore accounts beneficially owned by his girlfriend, and leveraging personal relationships to facilitate aspects of the fraud.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico presided over a jury trial in which the defendant was convicted of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank, mail, and wire fraud. The district court admitted evidence showing the defendant’s control over the scheme, including his direction of a confederate to engage in a sham marriage, his ties and travel to Central American countries, and the distribution of loan proceeds to an offshore company owned by his girlfriend. The court sentenced the defendant to 210 months’ imprisonment, applying enhancements for being a leader of extensive criminal activity and for employing sophisticated means.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the conviction and sentence. The court rejected the defendant’s challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of control, foreign ties, and financial distributions. The court affirmed the application of guideline enhancements for leadership and sophisticated means, and found the sentence substantively reasonable despite disparity with a codefendant, due to greater culpability and aggravating factors. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and granted the defendant’s request to supplement the record. View "United States v. Beckner" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs who purchased stock in a publicly traded corporation brought a securities class action against the corporation and several of its executives. Their complaint alleged the company embarked on an unusually risky plan to develop a nationwide 5G wireless network using unproven technologies and made materially false or misleading statements concerning the progress and capabilities of the network, anticipated enterprise customer relationships, projected revenue growth, and market demand. The plaintiffs asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, claiming the defendants acted with fraudulent intent or recklessness, leading the plaintiffs and other investors to acquire stock at artificially inflated prices.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the complaint did not allege any actionable misstatements, facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, or loss causation. The district court agreed, finding that the alleged statements were not false when made and that the complaint lacked particularized facts showing the defendants acted with the required scienter under the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the PSLRA’s requirements to plead with particularity both falsity and scienter for each alleged misstatement. The court also affirmed dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim, as it is derivative of the Section 10(b) claim. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Lingam v. Dish Network Corporation" on Justia Law

At a psychiatric hospital, employees were exposed to violent behavior from disturbed patients. Following a tip, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated and cited the hospital for failing to implement measures that could have protected staff from workplace violence. These measures included reconfiguring nurses’ stations, providing communication devices, fully implementing existing safety programs, maintaining adequate staffing, securing patient belongings, hiring specialized security staff, and investigating each incident of workplace violence. The hospital did not contest the necessity of some measures but challenged the citation overall.An administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission conducted a hearing, upheld the citation, and imposed a fine. The judge’s decision became the final decision of the Review Commission when it declined further review. The hospital then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for judicial review, arguing that another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had exclusive authority over hospital safety, that the Secretary of Labor should have deferred to other regulatory bodies, and that the Secretary’s methods and notice were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause in this context, as the cited agency did not actually regulate employee safety regarding workplace violence. The court found that the Secretary provided fair notice, acted within statutory authority, and permissibly used adjudication rather than rulemaking. The court also concluded that the abatement measures were feasible, supported by substantial evidence, and that the imposed sanctions for failure to preserve video evidence were appropriate. The Tenth Circuit denied the hospital’s petition for review, upholding the citation and penalty. View "Cedar Springs Hospital v. Occupational Health and Safety" on Justia Law

A management company and the owner of a psychiatric hospital were both penalized after the hospital failed to implement sufficient safety measures to protect employees from workplace violence. The central issue was whether the management company could be held liable under workplace safety laws, specifically whether its relationship with the hospital owner meant it was subject to the same penalties for safety violations.Previously, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission evaluated whether the management company was an “employer” for relevant employees by applying a three-part factual test. This test asked whether there was a shared worksite, whether the companies’ operations (particularly regarding safety and health) were integrated, and whether the companies shared responsibility through common management, supervision, or ownership. The Commission answered all three questions affirmatively, finding the management company liable as an employer for some hospital employees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case, examining whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings. The court found that the hospital was a worksite for the management company because its employees worked there and were exposed to workplace hazards. The companies’ operations were sufficiently integrated on safety matters, evidenced by the management company’s oversight and involvement in safety training and policy enforcement. Finally, both companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation, satisfying the requirement for shared ownership.The Tenth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings and denied the management company’s petition for review. The court’s holding was that, under the agreed-upon three-part test, the management company was properly held liable as an employer for workplace safety violations at the hospital and was subject to the associated penalties. View "UHS of Delaware v. Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who has a disability, took the New Mexico bar exam in February 2020 and was approved for testing accommodations. She alleged that these accommodations were not properly provided during the exam. Subsequently, she initiated legal action, amending her complaint multiple times before any defendant appeared. The third amended complaint asserted claims under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal and state laws.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed all claims. Specifically, it dismissed claims against the National Conference of Bar Examiners (the National Conference) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and permitted amendment of the complaint only to allow a Title III ADA claim against the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners (the State Board). The district court later dismissed the Title III claim against the State Board on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. It also granted summary judgment to the State Board on the Rehabilitation Act claim, finding the Board did not receive federal funds, and denied the plaintiff’s requests for additional discovery as insufficient under Rule 56(d).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff had not properly preserved her entitlement to jurisdictional discovery regarding the National Conference, nor did she adequately request or specify discovery that could alter the personal jurisdiction determination. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery on the Rehabilitation Act claim, as the plaintiff failed to meet procedural requirements. Finally, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the State Board was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from Title III ADA claims and that the plaintiff failed to show any waiver or valid abrogation of immunity. The judgment below was affirmed. View "Spann v. National Conference of Bar Examiners" on Justia Law

A group of individuals traveling through Kansas were stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) troopers while driving on interstate highways, primarily I-70. In each instance, the drivers and passengers were from out of state, often driving to or from Colorado, and were stopped for alleged traffic violations. After the initial traffic stop was concluded, troopers used a tactic known as the “Kansas Two-Step”—they would briefly disengage, then reinitiate conversation in an attempt to gain consent for further questioning or searches. These stops often led to extended detentions and searches, but no contraband was discovered. The troopers testified that they considered the drivers’ out-of-state status, travel to or from Colorado, and other factors in developing reasonable suspicion.The individuals sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and their constitutional right to travel. Some plaintiffs also brought damages claims, resulting in jury verdicts in their favor. For their claims for injunctive relief, the district court conducted a bench trial and found that KHP had a pattern and practice of targeting out-of-state drivers and using the Two-Step in a manner violating the Fourth Amendment. The court granted a permanent injunction, requiring changes in KHP’s training, documentation, consent procedures, and supervision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing for injunctive relief and whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing because there was a substantial risk they would be stopped again and that KHP had a pattern of unconstitutional conduct. However, the Tenth Circuit found that the injunction was overly broad regarding the use of a driver’s state of origin and the Two-Step tactic. The court affirmed the injunction in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shaw v. Smith" on Justia Law

A citizen of El Salvador entered the United States near El Paso, Texas, in February 2023 without proper documentation. He was detained and placed in removal proceedings, where he conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He alleged that he had been detained and abused by Salvadoran authorities on several occasions, including being beaten and subjected to harsh conditions, and pointed to his and his mother’s limited involvement in a human rights organization as evidence that he was targeted for political reasons. He also described a general pattern of young men in his neighborhood being suspected of gang affiliation by police.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that, while the petitioner’s testimony was at times lacking in detail, he was not found to be non-credible. However, the IJ concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his alleged persecution and any protected ground such as political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The IJ also determined that the mistreatment described did not rise to the level of torture under the CAT and that internal relocation within El Salvador might be possible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that the petitioner had not met the requirements for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief, and rejected claims of an unfair hearing.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner had not shown persecution on account of a protected ground, nor that he was more likely than not to face torture if returned. The court also found no due process violation, determining that the IJ adequately developed the record and that there was insufficient evidence of prejudicial translation errors. The petition for review was denied. View "Bonilla-Espinoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law