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

This was a case of first impression for the Court. John Doe, a registered sex offender, brought a facial challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a ban enacted by the City of Albuquerque that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering the City's public libraries. The district court denied a motion to dismiss brought by the City and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Doe. The court concluded that the ban burdened Doe's fundamental right to receive information under the First Amendment and that the City failed sufficiently to controvert Doe's contention on summary judgment that the ban did not satisfy the time, place, or manner test applicable to restrictions in a designated public forum. The City appealed both the denial of its motion to dismiss and the grant of Doe's summary judgment motion. The City, relying on a mistaken interpretation of case law regarding facial challenges, erroneously contended that it had no burden to respond to Doe's motion. Consequently, the City failed to present any reasons for its ban. "Had the City done so, it is not difficult to imagine that the ban might have survived Doe's challenge," because the Court recognized the City's "significant interest in providing a safe environment for its library patrons, especially children." However, with no response, the Court was "bound by the record" and affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Doe. View "Doe v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Sonja Morris appealed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings on her First Amendment retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and grant of summary judgment on her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in favor of Defendant Memorial Health System. Plaintiff worked as a registered nurse for Memorial and in 2007 joined the "Heart Team" which was performed all heart surgeries at the hospital. During her time with the Team, Plaintiff contended that the lead surgeon harassed her on multiple occasions. Despite participation in a teambuilding program, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Claim on Memorial in 2008. The hospital removed Plaintiff from the Heart Team and into a more "comfortable" work environment. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Memorial claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was removed from the Heart Team because she submitted her Notice of Claim. The district court granted Memorial's motion on the First Amendment claim on the ground that the notice did not contain "speech" as determined by case law. Furthermore, the court held that Plaintiff could not establish that the alleged harassment was based on her gender or pervasive enough to affect her work environment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in affirming the district court. View "Morris v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart Guttman, MD had a history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. His medical license was "qualified" by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners, which subjected him to quarterly psychiatrist reports and other conditions. The Board removed the qualifications in 1995. Several years later, the Board began receiving complaints about Plaintiff. The Board reviewed Plaintiff's conduct in his practice, and in 2000, the Board summarily suspended Plaintiff's medical license after finding "clear and convincing" evidence that having Plaintiff continue his practice would be an "imminent danger to public safety." In 2001, after recognizing an extensive pattern of disruptive and abusive behavior in dealing with patients and healthcare professionals, the Board revoked Plaintiff's license. The question presented in this appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Eleventh Amendment protected New Mexico from a suit for money damages under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff challenged the Board's findings in state court, asserting that the Board's actions violated Title II of the ADA. The State court refused to consider Plaintiff's claim, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Eleventh Amendment indeed protects New Mexico from suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's ADA claim. View "Guttman v. Khalsa, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Elvin Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper violated his constitutional rights in 2007 during a traffic stop that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest and eventual conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. In addition to the trooper's motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint were barred by the statute of limitations. After review of Plaintiff's opening brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff's arguments were inadequate to support his complaint. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court in dismissing Plaintiff's case. View "Watkins v. Craft" on Justia Law

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Dumas appealed the dismissal of his workplace discrimination suit against Proctor and Gamble (P&G). Plaintiff was employed as a contractor assigned to work at P&G's Kansas City manufacturing plant in 2005. Between 2005 and 2007, Plaintiff alleged he was subjected to discrimination in the workplace including the use of racial epithets, misuse of company disciplinary proceedings, and an incident in which a chair was pulled away as Dumas was attempting to sit on it. Dumas resigned in November of 2007. In 2011, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination. The EEOC closed the claim as untimely. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in district court against P&G, and P&G moved to dismiss, alleging Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff responded that he was given bad advice by an unnamed EEOC agent. The district court concluded that Dumas failed to meet the narrow requirements for equitable tolling and dismissed the claim. Finding that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of establishing that an EEOC agent actually misled him, and insufficiently present his state law claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement in dismissing Plaintiff's case. View "Dumas v. Proctor & Gamble" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce Field filed a wrongful termination action against his former employer the Board of Water Commissioners for the City and County of Denver (Denver Water), alleging three "1983" retaliation claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Denver water and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff was a project manager. He came to suspect misconduct between senior engineers and several contractors at three projects he was working on. Plaintiff expressed his concerns to his superiors, who responded that the matters were "taken care of." Denver Water assured Mr. Field they were retaining a national auditing firm to conduct an external review, but he alleged the firm was unqualified and biased. Plaintiff's supervisor issued a recommendation for corrective action against Plaintiff, noting that an internal auditor had "seen nothing that could not be corrected" at the end of the projects. Further, the supervisor reported that Plaintiff was insubordinate and "willing to go to extreme lengths to prove his unreasonable belief that the contractors and Denver Water management are corrupt." The supervisor recommended that Plaintiff be terminated. Finding that the district court "accurately and thoroughly examined Mr. Field's claims and concluded they were all meritless," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's case. View "Field v. Board of Water Commissioner" on Justia Law

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Sione Hoko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish Detergents, Inc. on his Title VII and state-law civil rights claims. Plaintiff worked for Huish from 1989 until he was terminated in 2005. His law position was a Supervisor in the "Raw Material Department." An internal audi report showed that from June 12 through June 22, 02005, Plaintiff repeatedly visited non-work related internet sites for extended periods of time during his workday. He was terminated based on excessive amounts of time he spent on the internet. Finding that Plaintiff was an "at-will" employee, and that he failed to provide any evidence of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment or that Huish terminated him in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish. View "Hoko v. Huish Detergents, Inc." on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Wayne Smith appealed a district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) officials. Plaintiff was incarcerated from 1998 to September 2002. In May 2002, he filed the action against the defendants in state court. That action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to pay costs. In November 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against the defendants in federal court. That action was dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case in an orderly and timely fashion. During the pendency of the 2005 action, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case in September 2007. His claims arose during his incarceration in the KDOC and the bulk of the allegations relate to events from 1998 through 2002. The district court sua sponte considered the timeliness of Plaintiff's complaint before it was served on defendants, and concluded that the applicable limitations period for bringing all of Plaintiff's claims was two years. Before dismissing the action, the district court reviewed Plaintiff's response to its show cause order and then dismissed the case with prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Plaintiff's case, and affirmed its decision. View "Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff Stephen Burnett appealed a district court’s order dismissing his civil-rights complaint and denying his motion to add a defendant. Plaitiff's case arose from a six-week lockdown at the Cimmaron facility in which Plaitiff was incarcerated. "The linchpin of [Plaintiff's] suit was not whether prison officials had the authority to impose a lockdown, but instead whether the restrictions imposed during the lockdown so altered the conditions of his confinement as to violate his constitutional rights." The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation which concluded that Plaintiff's claims against Warden Joseph Taylor were moot and should have been dismissed without prejudice. As to the director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Justin Jones, the magistrate found that even if the claims against him were not moot, those claims should have been dismissed with prejudice because the complaint failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted and would have been futile to amend. The magistrate also denied Plaintiff's motion to add Warden Robert Ezell as a defendant. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, effectively ending Plaintiff's case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit partly affirmed, partly reversed the district court (and magistrate judge's) decision. Because the Court's conclusion that the claims against Mr. Jones were moot but for different reasons than the district court, it reversed the decision for dismissal without prejudice. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Appellant Taissiya Oleyniikova , an employee of the State of Colorado's Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Information Tenchology Services brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages against the DHS' executive director and some of the agency's employees (Defendants). Appellant challenged the grant of summary judgement in favor of DHS. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff emailed a supervisor stating that she felt "insulted" by another co-worker, because that co-worker accused her of lying. Over the next few months, Plaintiff sought a promotion within her department, but claimed that this attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of her right to freedom of speech. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's ruling on the retaliation claim only. Finding that Plaintiff's statements were not on a matter of public concern, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.