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

Pro se Petitioner Katherine Slocum appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice her claims against Corporate Express U.S., Inc., Corporate Express Office Products, Inc., (Corporate Express), Cox Communications Central II, Inc., Cox Oklahoma Telcom, LLC, Coxcom, Inc., (Cox), Journal Broadcast Group, Inc., and Journal Broadcast Group of Kansas, Inc., (Journal Broadcast). Petitioner's suit revolved around allegations that Defendants engaged in illegal surveillance, harassment and discrimination. The complaint, which sought $40 million in actual damages and $20 million in punitive damages, also asserted claims of (among other things) trespass, computer crime, slander, aggravated assault, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, insurance fraud, contributory negligence, and wrongful termination. The district court concluded that Petitioner's allegations failed to survive motions to dismiss. On appeal in a 63-page brief, Petitioner mainly re-alleged the claims made at the district court and contends that they were improperly dismissed, in addition to making other procedural and substantive arguments. The Tenth Circuit reviewed other contentions raised by Petitioner in this appeal and found them to be without merit. Some of these arguments, along with new factual assertions, were first made in her reply brief, which the Court declined to consider. Accordingly the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal.

This case concerned the appeal of two district court orders. The first order granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants County of Bernalillo and several county officials against Plaintiffs Doris Lujan and her minor daughters, R.L. and D.L., on their claims for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The second order is one that referred a memorandum and order concerning Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Dennis Montoya, to the Chief Judge of the New Mexico Federal District Court and to the Chief Counsel of the Disciplinary Board for the State Bar of New Mexico. The issues raised by Plaintiff on appeal concerned the searches of Doris Lujan and her daughters and the detention of the minors in an adult holding cell pending their release to a responsible party. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including qualified immunity. Plaintiffs never addressed qualified immunity in their appeal. "Even if [the Tenth Circuit Court] were inclined to overlook this failure, the result would be the same, because just as in the district court, Plaintiffs have failed to explain how the alleged misconduct violated their constitutional rights, and more to the point, that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident." The Court did not consider Mr. Montoya's memorandum referred to the chief judge and disciplinary counsel because he "apparently abandoned the appeal." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioner Charles Raymond Wheeler appealed a Tax Court decision finding him liable for (1) income-tax deficiencies for the years 2002, 2004, and 2005; (2) additions to tax for those years; and (3) a $25,000 sanction. Petitioner did not claim to have filed returns for the years in question, or to have paid taxes owing for those years, yet he urged the Tenth Circuit to overturn the Tax Court’s decision and determine that he had no liability. He contended on appeal that the Commissioner did not prove that he had failed to file returns, did not carry the burden of production on the additions to tax, and did not create a valid substitute return to support the taxes and additions imposed. In addition, he claimed that the Tax Court judge was biased against him. The Commissioner filed a motion for sanctions against Petitioner for filing a frivolous appeal maintained primarily for delay. Upon review of Petitioner's arguments, the Tenth Circuit found all without merit and affirmed the Tax Court's decisions and the imposition of sanctions.

Defendant Dwayne Hudson petitioned the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. In the complaint, Defendant alleged his civil rights were violated stemming from the revocation of his parole for failing to register as a sex offender. The district court concluded Defendant's complaint was legally frivolous and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. Upon review of the trial record and the brief Defendant presented on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant did not present "reasoned, non-frivolous arguments" in support of the issues he raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as frivolous and denied his motion to proceed on appeal and reminded him of his obligation to pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court.

Plaintiffs, a group of inmates in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), sued Defendant Roger Werholtz, Secretary of KDOC (the Secretary), under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. They challenged two policies in the KDOC's Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP), which requires money obtained by the inmate to be saved for use upon release from prison. "Plaintiffs' imprecise amended complaint appeared to contend" that these policies: (1) violated their private-property rights without due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) were unconstitutionally vague; (3) violated the federal and Kansas constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) imposed punishment in violation of the "principles of ex post facto." Contending that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim and had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to grant summary judgment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the compulsory-savings plans did not violate Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs appealed. Upon careful consideration of the Plaintiffs' appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that their argument failed on multiple levels to allege the violation of any constitutional right or a basis on which the Court could grant any relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Prisoner-Petitioner Mark Tuckel filed a "1983" lawsuit against two prison officials. In his suit, Petitioner averred that he was beaten in retaliation for submitting a complaint through the prison grievance system. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that Petitioner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that a petitioner with an objectively reasonable fear of retaliation from prison officials may show that administrative remedies were unavailable to him and thereby be excused from exhausting such remedies. Because there were disputed issues of fact about the availability of administrative remedies to Petitioner, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendants Daniel Montoya and Joe Williams appealed the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ray Brown's "1983" lawsuit against them. Plaintiff pled guilty to two counts of false imprisonment in New Mexico state court. When he was released from custody, his probation officer, Daniel Montoya, directed him to register as a sex offender and placed him in the sex offender probation unit. Officer Montoya alleged that he acted on information that the victim in Plaintiff's false imprisonment case was a minor and, under Officer Montoya’s understanding of the law, Plaintiff was properly classified as a sex offender. Plaintiff sought and won in state court an order removing his name from the sex offender registry and removing him from the sex offender probation unit. Plaintiff then filed suit, alleging violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection rights. The Defendants argued, among other things, that their qualified immunity from suit required dismissal. The Tenth Circuit's review of the case was limited to the qualified immunity issue. As to Plaintiff's claims against Secretary Williams in his individual capacity, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of the motion. As to Plaintiff's procedural due process claim against Officer Montoya, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss on the substantive due process and equal protection claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Dennis Carter began working as a directional driller at Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc., in December 2004. Two years later, declining health had caused a reduction in Plaintiff's workload. Pathfinder fired Plaintiff for "gross misconduct" based primarily on an altercation that he had had with a coworker and his language and attitude during a conversation with his supervisor. Plaintiff sued Pathfinder in federal district court, alleging that Pathfinder had violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). He also alleged that Pathfinder had breached his implied-in-fact employment contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pathfinder on all three claims. Upon careful review, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims. Specifically, the Tenth Court held that "[a] reasonable jury could conclude that [Plaintiff] has made out a prima facie case of discrimination and has established that Pathfinder’s asserted justification for his firing was pretextual. At this stage of the case, that is enough." The Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the ADA claim.

Beginning in 2004, Plaintiff-Appellant Vicki Koch and her parents assumed control over the property and care of an elderly woman, Gladys Lance. Ms. Lance’s niece became concerned about her aunt’s welfare, and in 2005, when she could no longer locate Ms. Lance, she obtained an order from an Oklahoma state court appointing her as Ms. Lance’s special guardian. Several days later, Defendant-Appellant John Beech, an officer of the Del City Police Department, was told by his supervisor that a "pickup" order had been issued for Ms. Lance, and that he should go to Ms. Koch’s residence to check on Ms. Lance. When he did, he encountered Ms. Koch on her front doorstep. He asked Ms. Koch where Ms. Lance was located, but Ms. Koch refused to tell him, instead telling him to leave her property and talk to her attorney. When Ms. Koch persisted in her non-responsiveness and turned to leave, Officer Beech arrested her for obstruction. During the arrest, a scuffle ensued, which concluded when Officer Beech brought Ms. Koch to the ground and handcuffed her. Ms. Koch sued Officer Beech and Del City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest and excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that Officer Beech was entitled to qualified immunity. Ms. Koch appealed that decision. The Appellees, in turn, challenged the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction to hear Ms. Koch’s appeal. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's decision.

State prisoner Plaintiff Michael Milligan appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his Section 1983 complaint against various Colorado prison officials who were allegedly involved in decisions affecting Plaintiff's prison employment. Plaintiff alleged he worked for the prison's maintenance department plumbing crew for months without incident. In the fall of 2010 however, Plaintiff's "gate pass" was pulled, preventing him from accessing areas in which the maintenance department was located. Plaintiff was allegedly told that inmates assigned to work in these areas were reevaluated for their potential escape risk following the escape of another inmate. After he filed a grievance regarding his designation as a potential escape risk, the facility job board allegedly took his job away and placed him in vocational janitorial school. In his complaint, Plaintiff raised an equal protection claim based on the pulling of his gate pass as well as a retaliation claim based on the loss of his job in the maintenance department. The district court found that Plaintiff could not state an arguable claim that his civil rights were violated. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's complaint: "We are not persuaded, however, that amendment would necessarily be futile or that this claim was based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." The Court reversed the district court's order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.