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

In November 2022, Anderson Aldrich entered Club Q, an LGBTQIA+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, and shot patrons, killing five people and injuring twenty-five others. Survivors and families of victims sued multiple defendants: the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, the Sheriff, and Club Q’s owners and associated entities. Against the County Defendants, plaintiffs raised federal substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging county policies prevented law enforcement from seeking emergency protection orders (ERPOs), thereby increasing vulnerability to private violence. Against Club Q Defendants, plaintiffs brought claims under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA), as well as negligence and wrongful-death claims, alleging inadequate security and safety measures.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss all federal claims, finding plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged affirmative danger-creating conduct required under the state-created-danger theory. The court also dismissed the CPLA claims against Club Q Defendants due to lack of causation, but denied dismissal of negligence and wrongful-death claims, reasoning the exclusivity of the CPLA was a fact-intensive issue not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage. Once federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims and entered judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims, holding plaintiffs failed to allege that county conduct placed them at immediate risk, thus not satisfying the affirmative-conduct requirement. The court also affirmed dismissal of the CPLA claims, concluding Aldrich’s actions were the predominant cause of injury under Colorado law. However, it reversed the district court’s denial of dismissal for negligence and wrongful-death claims, holding the CPLA provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from Club Q’s conditions and precludes those common-law claims. View "Vance v. Aldrich" on Justia Law

Three female student-athletes at a public university in New Mexico alleged that the university was deliberately indifferent under Title IX to their reports of sexual abuse by the husband of their basketball coach. The husband, while not officially employed by the university, provided unauthorized “biomechanics” treatments to student-athletes, including the plaintiffs, sometimes on campus and later at his home. The head coach, his wife, allegedly required players with injuries to see him for treatment, and if they objected, questioned the seriousness of their injuries. Incidents of inappropriate touching and sexual assault were reported by the plaintiffs and other students during these treatments.Reports of misconduct began surfacing in spring 2022, first to the head athletic trainer, who raised concerns with the university’s Athletic Director. However, reports were not always relayed to appropriate officials, sometimes due to lack of Title IX training. When allegations of sexual misconduct became known, the university’s main response was to attempt to formalize the husband’s volunteer status rather than to investigate or prohibit further contact. Only months later, after more reports and an internal meeting, did the university ban him from campus and instruct coaches not to refer players to him, at which point the assaults ceased.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment to the university, finding it lacked sufficient control over the husband for Title IX liability to attach, and that there was no official policy of deliberate indifference. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and held that, while there was no evidence of an official policy of deliberate indifference, the university had sufficient practical control over the husband and the context of the abuse to potentially incur Title IX liability. The Tenth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe 1 v. Eastern New Mexico University Board of Regents" on Justia Law

A woman was arrested and searched by Colorado Springs police officers in the parking lot of a motel where she lived, following her involvement in assisting an overdose victim and recording the police response. The officers claimed she was disruptive and failed to comply with commands to leave the scene, while she maintained she was cooperative and was wrongfully arrested. After her acquittal of the municipal charge, she brought a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers for unlawful arrest and search, seeking damages including for emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed extensive disputes during discovery. The plaintiff had deleted social media videos of her later police encounters, as well as records and messages related to the arrest. The court sanctioned her and her attorneys with a monetary penalty and gave adverse-inference jury instructions, directing the jury to presume that she regularly disrupted police business and profited from posting such videos. At trial, over her objection, the court admitted more than twenty clips from her unrelated copwatching videos, which portrayed her berating officers and threatening lawsuits. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the unrelated videos and by issuing an adverse-inference instruction that invited improper propensity reasoning, thereby unfairly prejudicing the plaintiff before the jury and depriving her of a fair trial. The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment for the officers and remanded the case for a new trial. However, it affirmed the monetary sanction against the plaintiff and her attorneys for discovery violations. View "Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

Wilford Deweese, a 67-year-old man from Florida, was traveling through Manitou Springs, Colorado, when he became involved in an altercation at a bar. After being refused service at two establishments, Deweese returned to the first bar to retrieve his belongings, leading to an argument with the bartender and a patron. During this confrontation, Deweese attempted to show a gun, prompting someone to call 911. Police located him in a nearby courtyard. Over roughly twenty minutes, officers repeatedly ordered Deweese to surrender, but he did not comply. After warning him, officers released a police canine to subdue him. As Deweese drew his firearm to shoot the dog, officers responded with gunfire, resulting in his death.Following these events, Deweese’s estate filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the officers, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment for excessive force and related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The officers invoked qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. The district court agreed, granting their motion to dismiss the federal claims on the grounds that any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time. The court declined jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiff failed to identify Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent, or a consensus of authority from other circuits, that would have clearly established the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct under the particular circumstances present. The court further found that the situation did not rise to an obvious or egregious constitutional violation. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the officers. View "Estate of Deweese v. Hancock" on Justia Law

A member of the Choctaw Tribe was arrested by a police officer from the Duncan Police Department after the officer responded to a report of a suspicious individual at a store located within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation. The officer, who was cross-commissioned by both the city and the tribe, conducted field sobriety tests, arrested the individual, and read him Oklahoma’s Implied Consent Test Request. The arrestee was booked on state criminal charges, but it was later discovered during booking that he was a tribal member and the alleged offenses occurred in Indian country, rendering Oklahoma courts without jurisdiction. The officer then filed tribal charges, which were eventually dismissed.Following these events, the individual filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and state-law claims for false arrest and unlawful detention. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, determining that the officer acted under tribal, not state, authority and thus the § 1983 claim failed. The court also dismissed the state-law claims for the same reason.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The appellate court explained that a state officer may detain a suspect before conclusively determining tribal status, and that acting in excess of authority may still constitute action under color of state law for § 1983 purposes. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, without deciding whether the officer ultimately satisfied the color-of-law requirement. The court also reversed the dismissal of the state-law claims, since that decision depended on the mistaken analysis of the federal claim. View "Walden v. The City of Duncan, Oklahoma" on Justia Law

A group of young activists in Oklahoma City participated in racial-justice protests in the summer of 2020. During one incident, they were involved in a confrontation with a police officer near a permitted mural painting. The activists were later charged under Oklahoma’s riot-related statutes, with allegations that they surrounded a patrol car, yelled threats and expletives, and confined the officer briefly. Several of the plaintiffs pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges, while one had charges dismissed after proving non-involvement.The activists subsequently filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against state and county officials, challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma Statutes, title 21, section 1311 (the Riot Statute). They argued the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment and unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the statute. The district court denied their request, construing the statute to include intent elements based on Oklahoma case law, and found plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Because of unsettled state law questions, the Tenth Circuit certified questions to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which clarified that the Riot Statute requires a showing of willfulness and a common intent to use or threaten violence, but does not require proof of recklessness. Relying on this construction, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on their facial overbreadth and vagueness challenges. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Terry v. Drummond" on Justia Law

A law student alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a classmate after a night of drinking. She reported to a friend that she had no memory of part of the night, woke up with bruises, and believed she was too intoxicated to consent. The friend urged her to contact law enforcement and accompanied her to the hospital, where police officers met with them. The student expressed reluctance to press charges but described the incident. Officers reviewed text messages between her and her friend and soon shifted their focus, investigating her for filing a false report. The student later met with a university Title IX office, but ultimately expressed a desire to end any criminal or university investigation, citing concerns over her career and stress. Nevertheless, the police continued investigating and later arrested her. She was charged with multiple counts of making false accusations, but the charges were dismissed with prejudice.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the student’s federal civil-rights claims for malicious prosecution and conspiracy, denied her leave to add a Fourth Amendment claim after the amendment deadline, and granted summary judgment to the defendants on her equal-protection claim and various state-law claims. The district court found she failed to sufficiently allege that the officers caused her prosecution or conspired to violate her rights, and that she did not demonstrate good cause to amend her complaint so late in the proceedings. The court also found she failed to show that she was treated differently than similarly situated individuals or that there was evidence of discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal claims, holding that the malicious prosecution and conspiracy claims were inadequately pled, and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case, instructing the district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, as federal claims had been resolved before trial. View "Horocofsky v. City of Lawrence" on Justia Law

A police officer in Savanna, Oklahoma, was accused of sexual assault during a traffic stop. After pulling over a vehicle for speeding, the officer activated both his body and dash cameras, then manually deactivated them before ordering a nineteen-year-old passenger to sit in his patrol car, where he sexually assaulted her. The cameras’ deactivation resulted in incomplete or soundless recordings of the incident. Subsequent investigation confirmed the officer had intentionally turned off both cameras during the stop. The victim promptly reported the assault, and the officer’s conduct was corroborated through physical evidence and analysis of the camera devices.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma charged the officer with deprivation of rights under color of law and two counts of falsifying records. After granting two continuances and denying a third, the court held a jury trial. The officer was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms of 480 months for deprivation of rights and 240 months for falsifying records. The presentence investigation established the advisory guidelines range, and the district court adopted its findings without objection.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the officer argued the district court erred in denying his third continuance, that manually deactivating the cameras did not violate the falsification statute, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit rejected each argument. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, found that intentionally deactivating the cameras to prevent the creation of a complete record constituted falsification under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and ruled that the sentence imposed was within the range of rationally available choices. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A minor student, W.B., attended public school in the Ottawa School District in Kansas from at least 2018 to 2023. During this period, he was subjected to repeated racial harassment by classmates, including racial slurs and physical bullying. Despite his mother, Dorlia Wilson, reporting these incidents multiple times to school officials through emails, meetings, and official complaints, the harassment continued. W.B. eventually attempted suicide and, after further incidents, was removed from the school and enrolled elsewhere to escape the ongoing bullying. School officials responded inadequately to Ms. Wilson’s complaints, and W.B. was suspended after bringing a pocketknife for self-defense, explaining his fear was due to the racial bullying.Ms. Wilson filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the Ottawa School District and several employees in their individual capacities, alleging civil rights violations under federal and state law. The employees moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity against the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and arguing insufficient allegations against school board members. The district court denied qualified immunity, finding the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to racial harassment and that the right to be free from such indifference was clearly established at the relevant time.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court affirmed, holding that deliberate indifference by school officials to peer racial harassment violates the Equal Protection Clause and that this right was clearly established. The court also found the complaint sufficiently alleged personal involvement of the school board members and denied the motion to dismiss. The order denying qualified immunity and dismissing Ms. Wilson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim was affirmed. View "Wilson v. Stoltenberg" on Justia Law

A longtime educator and administrator, the plaintiff began working as a teacher in 1996 and advanced to principal roles in Cherry Creek School District. In 2018, she became principal at High Plains Elementary. After receiving positive evaluations initially, complaints from staff and parents intensified during her second year. The teachers’ union conducted a “Listening Tour,” reporting negative staff feedback, including concerns about division, lack of trust, micromanagement, and fear of retaliation. Subsequent meetings between the plaintiff and her supervisors discussed these concerns and potential remedies. Ultimately, the district’s superintendent decided to demote her to assistant principal, citing loss of staff confidence but no disciplinary or misconduct issues. She took leave and then retired the following year.The plaintiff sued the school district, several administrators, and board members in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting federal claims under the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), the First Amendment, the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the due process, First Amendment, and EPA claims, and partially on the equal protection and Title IX claims. Only the equal protection claim against three individual administrators (based on disparate treatment) and the Title IX claim against the district (based on disparate treatment and sex stereotyping) proceeded to trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings and the subsequent judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed all decisions. The main holdings are: the plaintiff lacked a due process property interest in continued employment as principal; Cherry Creek’s salary determination based on relevant experience was a legitimate, non-discriminatory factor under the EPA; and, after trial, no reasonable jury could find sex or gender was a motivating factor in the plaintiff’s demotion for either equal protection or Title IX claims. View "Maccagnan v. Cherry Creek School District No. 5" on Justia Law