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

Plaintiff-Appellant Olivea Marx appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee General Revenue Corporation (GRC). Plaintiff defaulted on her student loan. GRC was hired by her lender to collect on the account. Plaintiff sued GRC alleging abusive and threatening phone called in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court, after a one-day trial in May 2010, found that the challenged collection practices were not abusive and threatening given its view of what actually occurred. Plaintiff did not appeal these findings, instead she contested the court's conclusion that a fax sent to her employer asking about her employment status did not violate the FDCPA's provision against debt-collector communications with third parties. Finding that the district court did not error in its decision made in her case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's order.

On a summer evening in 2005 a sniper shot down a police helicopter over Albuquerque. Police would implicate Plaintiff Jason Kerns, but after charges were filed, investigation would reveal that the bullet that brought down the helicopter could not have come from any of the firearms or ammunition Plaintiff owned, nor from the direction of his home. Plaintiff sued several members of the Albuquerque Police Department, alleging they had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his house on the night of the helicopter crash. He then sued the local sheriff, arguing the sheriff's efforts to obtain his psychiatric records violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. Plaintiff also sued other members of sheriff's department, accusing them of false arrest and malicious prosecution. All defendants moved for dismissal on immunity grounds, which was denied. Defendants appealed. Upon careful review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

After Plaintiff-Appellant David Cook brought his pro se "1983" action against prison officials, the district court found his complaint legally deficient and ordered him to amend it. Instead of amending the complaint, Plaintiff filed "motion after motion seeking…discovery and the appointment of counsel." The district court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond, and the court dismissed his complaint. He appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit who affirmed the dismissal: "[t]he simple fact is that no litigant, even a pro se litigant, may repeatedly disregard a court’s orders without inviting the lawful possibility that his case might be dismissed."

Plaintiffs Osler and Georgia Childress appealed a district court's order that dismissed their 42 U.S.C 1983 medical-indifference case against Defendant Robert Harms. In 2006, Mr. Childress was staying at a hotel in Midvale, Utah when a motel clerk saw him staggering around his room and running into things. She called police and reported that an intoxicated guest was causing a commotion. Police arrived on the scene and arrested him. Upon Mr. Childress's arrival at the jail, nurses Robert Harms and Joel Smith examined him while he was handcuffed to a gurney. Mr. Childress denied drinking and answered questions about his military duties without difficulty, although his speech was slightly slurred. Authorities would later learn that Mr. Childress has suffered a cerebellar stroke while in custody which was originally dismissed as intoxication. The district court determined that Nurse Harms merely misdiagnosed Mr. Childress and dismissed his claims by summary judgment. On appeal, Mr. Childress argued that the district court "confuse[d] knowledge of harm with knowledge of the risk of harm." The Tenth Circuit concluded that Mr. Childress failed to establish the subjective component of "deliberate indifference," and as such, summary judgment was appropriately entered on his claim.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Kartiganer appealed two district court orders that ultimately dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against several law enforcement members. In 2006, Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Walsenburg, Colorado. Evidence was seized during the stop, including financial instruments belonging to individuals other than Plaintiff. Based on the seized evidence,the district attorney's office decided probable cause existed to file felony charges against Plaintiff. A public defender was assigned to Plaintiff's case, who promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop. The court found no probable cause, and the DA's office dismissed the charges. Plaintiff sued alleging he had been falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and subjected to malicious prosecution for five months before the charges were dropped. A federal magistrate granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the "lengthy and thorough" decisions by the magistrate judge, as adopted and modified by the district court. The Court agreed completely with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, and affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims in this case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mayra Carrera was a trimmer in a Tyson meat processing plant in Kansas. One day, four of her co-workers made sexual gestures toward her by "moving and shaking their hips." When Plaintiff complained, a manager immediately spoke to the co-workers. No further incidents occurred, but Plaintiff felt ostracized by employees keeping their distance. Plaintiff asked for a transfer to another plant. Despite the transfer, Plaintiff filed suit alleging a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyson. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred by focusing only on the gesturing incident and ignoring the fact that afterward her co-workers ostracized her. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did consider this aspect of Plaintiff's claim "correctly observing that standoffish, unfriendly, and unapproachable behavior" was insufficient to establish an objectively hostile work environment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Anita Luster, an employee of the United States Forest Service, appealed a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff, a full-time Visitor Information Specialist (VIS) with the Forest Service, claimed that: (1) she was not selected for a Forestry Technician position because of her gender; (2) she suffered disparate work conditions because of her gender and in retaliation for her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination complaint; and (3) a Forest Service attorney inappropriately disclosed her EEO complaint information in violation of the Privacy Act. The Tenth Circuit "commend[ed] the district court for its thorough and well-reasoned order granting the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment" and affirmed, finding no error in the court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff Timothy J. Smith appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment for his employer, Defendant Morton International, Inc., (Morton), on his claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court held Smith’s claim failed at the prima facie case stage for two distinct reasons: he had not shown either that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or that Morton had discriminated against him on the basis of his alleged disability. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed that Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of his alleged disability, and affirmed on that basis without reaching the discrimination issue.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Aggie Joe Gallegos appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action brought against various Albuquerque police officers and other officials in connection with his 2007 arrest. Plaintiff was riding his bicycle in Albuquerque when he rode past a stop sign without stopping. Albuquerque police officer Defendant Byron Economidy was on patrol and, upon observing Plaintiff, he engaged his emergency lights in an attempt to stop Plaintiff. Plaintiff got off his bicycle and talked to Officer Economidy. But talks broke down and a chase ensued. Plaintiff abadoned the bicycle, and while running away from the officer, he threw things out of his pockets and ignored commands to stop running. Other police officers began arriving on the scene to assist. Officer Economidy and Plaintiff got into a physical altercation which ended with Plaintiff getting "tased" in the back. Plaintiff disputed the officer's account of the arrest, and brought this civil rights suit against the five officers involved in his arrest, in addition to the police chief, the mayor and the City of Albuquerque itself. Plaintiff argued that the officers used excessive force amounting to physical and psychological torture, and the City was vicariously liable for its officers' actions. The district court dismissed his case. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff argued that he was restrained in shackles in front of the jury, thereby causing him prejudice and rendering his trial fundamentally unfair. Finding no evidence that the trial court permitted Plaintiff to be in shackles in front of the jury, or that the trial court abused its discretion in the conduct of trial, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Larson appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for failing to state a claim. Appellant is a Colorado Sherriff's Deputy. Tina Henson is his aunt. Ms. Henson had previously resided with Michael Suchan at Mr. Suchan’s residence, where she and Mr. Suchan had shared a volatile relationship. Their relationship apparently ended, and Ms. Henson had left some personal items at Mr. Suchan’s residence. After Ms. Henson tried to retrieve her personal items, she sought the help of Appellant, her nephew. The two went to Mr. Suchan's place unannounced, and finding the door unlocked (believing Mr. Suchan was not home), entered. Mr. Suchan was home, and began yelling at Ms. Henson. Appellant called 911 and Defendants Michael Agos and Hans Gross, both deputy sheriffs in a neighboring county were among those who responded to the call. Appellant argued that he could not be arrested for criminal trespass, inasmuch as he claimed Ms. Henson was a resident of Mr. Suchan’s house and that both she and Appellant had a right to be on the premises. The deputies then informed Appellant that he was being arrested for criminal trespass, and when he protested this, Appellant was told that he was being arrested "because of politics." Appellant ultimately filed suit in Colorado district court, claiming he was subject to an unreasonable search and seizure as well as malicious prosecution. Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejecting Mr. Larson’s allegation that Deputies Agos and Gross violated the Fourth Amendment when they arrested him. The court concluded that the deputies had probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed criminal trespass. The court then determined that because Appellant "had not demonstrated that Defendants Agos and Gross committed a Fourth Amendment violation, Arapahoe County cannot be held liable for the lawful conduct of its officers." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court for substantially the same reasons stated in its order.