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

During a prolonged standoff in Las Vegas, New Mexico, Alejandro Alirez shot Cristal Cervantes and her grandfather inside their home while livestreaming the incident on Facebook. Law enforcement officers from multiple agencies responded after being alerted that Alirez, believed to be armed and mentally ill, was acting erratically at the residence. Upon the deputies’ arrival and their attempt to make contact, gunshots were fired almost immediately, with Cristal and her grandfather ultimately killed during the ordeal. Law enforcement officers established a perimeter and called for tactical support, but Cristal was found unresponsive after Alirez surrendered hours later.The plaintiffs, including Cristal’s personal representative and her mother, brought suit against various law enforcement agencies and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New Mexico state law, alleging failure to intervene and negligence. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their state-law claims, including negligent investigation, negligent training, and loss of consortium.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Tenth Circuit held that the law enforcement officers did not affirmatively act to create or increase the danger to Cristal, a necessary element for liability under the substantive due process “danger-creation” exception, and thus the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court found that the officers’ inability to intervene was caused by the immediate deadly threat posed by Alirez, precluding liability under New Mexico law for negligent investigation or related torts. The disposition of the case was affirmed in favor of the defendants. View "Salcido v. City of Las Vegas" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a senior engineer at a city water-treatment plant, applied for a superintendent position. Despite holding a Ph.D. in engineering and having extensive technical experience, he lacked significant leadership experience. The city’s hiring process initially required a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, but the city selected a younger, white candidate without a degree who had substantial leadership experience. The plaintiff, a middle-aged man from China, filed a grievance, and the city’s civil-service commission determined that the city had violated its written hiring policies by certifying candidates without the required degree. In response, the city revised the job description, removing the degree requirement and allowing work experience to substitute for education, then repeated the hiring process, ultimately selecting the same candidate.The plaintiff pursued claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on all remaining claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not submit evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the city’s stated preference for leadership experience was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The court found no sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities or subjectivity to support an inference of pretext, nor an overwhelming disparity in qualifications. The Tenth Circuit further held that the plaintiff failed to show pretext for retaliation, as the city’s explanation for changing the job requirements was not contradicted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Jiang v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who, while guarding a cache of drugs and money, opened fire on law enforcement officers, wounding one but not fatally due to protective gear. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on several charges, including attempted murder of federal officers and using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder, one § 924(c) count (with attempted murder as the predicate crime of violence), and a firearm possession charge, waiving most rights to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction. In exchange, the government dropped other charges and agreed not to prosecute his son.After his conviction, the defendant pursued multiple post-conviction relief motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, all unsuccessful. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, which invalidated the “residual clause” of § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence” as unconstitutionally vague, he sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted authorization, and the District of Utah considered the merits. The district court denied relief, concluding the plea waiver barred relief and, alternatively, that the defendant failed to show the sentencing court relied on the residual clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of the § 2255 motion. The court held that the defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing court relied on the now-invalid residual clause when applying § 924(c). The court further affirmed that attempted murder qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the still-valid “elements clause” of § 924(c). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of post-conviction relief. View "United States v. Sandoval-Flores" on Justia Law

While incarcerated in a Colorado state prison, the plaintiff, a practicing member of the Sac & Fox faith, brought suit seeking monetary and injunctive relief. He alleged that certain prison regulations and practices violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. His claims focused on being denied possession of sacred items, spiritual cleansing of his cell, use of donated firewood for religious ceremonies, and access to faith grounds during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff named numerous officials and employees, including the Governor of Colorado, in both their official and individual capacities.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Governor’s motion to dismiss the official-capacity claims for injunctive relief, rejecting his assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Governor argued he lacked the required connection to the challenged regulations to qualify for the Ex Parte Young exception. During the appeal, the plaintiff was transferred to another facility within the Colorado Department of Corrections. The Governor raised the issue of mootness due to this transfer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether the claims for injunctive relief against the Governor were moot because of the transfer and whether Eleventh Amendment immunity applied. The court held that the claims were neither constitutionally nor prudentially moot, as the plaintiff’s affidavit showed ongoing exposure to substantially similar conditions at the new facility. The court further held that, under Colorado law and the facts alleged, the Governor had sufficient authority and demonstrated involvement in the challenged practices to satisfy the Ex Parte Young exception. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity and remanded for further proceedings. View "Eaves v. Polis" on Justia Law

A fifth-grade student, J.S., attended a local Oklahoma elementary school where, in August 2022, the administration implemented a policy segregating fifth-grade students into all-boys and all-girls homerooms. J.S. was placed in the boys’ class, taught by Mr. McClain. During the initial weeks, Mr. McClain allegedly targeted J.S. with severe discipline, derogatory language, and inappropriate sexual comments. After J.S. and his parents complained about this treatment and the sex-segregated policy, J.S. was removed from his classroom and placed on a modified schedule, then ultimately withdrawn from the school by his parents, who cited ongoing retaliation and lack of safety. The parents also filed a Title IX complaint, but alleged that the school’s investigation was inadequate and retaliatory actions followed, including public shaming and further mistreatment of J.S.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted in part and denied in part various defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding some claims barred by qualified immunity but allowing others to proceed. The court found that school district officials and Mr. McClain could not claim qualified immunity on certain equal protection and retaliation claims, but dismissed some due process and conspiracy claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that school officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim but not on the equal protection claim related to sex-based class segregation. Principal Anderson and Mr. Blair were properly denied qualified immunity on retaliation claims, while others were dismissed. Mr. McClain was granted qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim but not on the equal protection claim for alleged sexual harassment. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stepp v. Lockhart" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who was in his mid-fifties and had decades of restaurant industry experience, was employed by the defendant as a field leader, overseeing several restaurants. He was recognized as a top performer in 2021, with high scores on cleanliness and safety audits. In early 2022, a severe cockroach infestation was reported at one of his assigned restaurants. The infestation was not previously known to him, and he took steps to address it once notified. However, his supervisor observed persistent pest and cleanliness problems at this and other locations within his responsibility. Additionally, site audits found that several of his restaurants failed to meet cleanliness standards within a single week.After these incidents, the plaintiff was terminated for failing to maintain company food safety standards and for not reporting critical breaches promptly. He received termination documentation and final warnings simultaneously. The plaintiff later sued under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, alleging that his termination was due to age discrimination. The defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient evidence that the stated reasons for his firing were a pretext for age discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence that the employer’s justification was pretextual. The evidence failed to show that younger employees with comparable problems were treated more favorably or that the employer’s stated reasons were false or inconsistent. The court emphasized that it would not second-guess business decisions absent evidence of discrimination. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Sousa v. Chipotle Services" 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 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 Kansas man was convicted in 2009 for the murder of a woman, Kathleen, but was acquitted of killing her husband, Carl. After spending twelve years in prison, he was exonerated when evidence emerged showing Kathleen had killed both herself and her husband, framing him for the crime. The exonerated man died shortly after his release. His widow, as executor of his estate, filed a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by the police during the investigation that led to his conviction. Specifically, the claims against the two lead detectives included fabrication and suppression of evidence (Count I) and malicious prosecution (Count II).The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the detectives’ motion for summary judgment on both counts, rejecting their assertion of qualified immunity. The district court found that a jury could conclude the detectives withheld material exculpatory evidence, failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, and fabricated inculpatory evidence. The court also found that a reasonable jury could determine the detectives acted at least recklessly, and that clear legal precedent established the officers’ obligations. The district court further denied summary judgment to the Unified Government (the detectives’ employer) on municipal liability claims, because those claims depended on the detectives’ alleged constitutional violations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed only the legal questions related to qualified immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on both counts, concluding the estate’s claims were supported by controlling law and sufficient factual allegations. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the Unified Government’s appeal for lack of pendent appellate jurisdiction, since it did not independently resolve the underlying constitutional claims. View "Coones v. Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law