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

Believing that Utah state law required the Utah Department of Corrections ("UDOC") to pay interest on prison accounts, plaintiff-appellant Reginald Williams investigated the relationship between UDOC and Zions First National Bank (Zions Bank). Based on his investigation, he concluded that Zions Bank had a contract with UDOC to hold prisoner funds in an account administered by UDOC, and that the interest earned on the funds was illegally retained by the bank, when it should have been paid to the prisoners who owned the funds. Williams believed that, in response to this investigation, UDOC retaliated against him by, among other things, seizing his legal papers and giving him a negative parole report, which resulted in the denial of parole. He claimed that he was a model prisoner who was similarly situated to other prisoners who had been granted parole. Proceeding pro se, Williams filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against UDOC, numerous prison officials, Zions Bank, and several Zions Bank employees, alleging takings and due-process constitutional violations for withholding interest on inmate funds, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for raising these issues. After the district court appointed counsel for Williams, all defendants moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed all claims except the retaliation claim, and dismissed all defendants except five prison officials. The remaining defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim, which the district court granted. In their motion to dismiss, UDOC and the prison-official defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity, claiming that as an arm of the State of Utah, UDOC was immune from suit, and that the prison personnel were similarly immune from suit for claims against them in their official capacities. Williams presented no argument regarding the Eleventh Amendment, and the district court did not address Eleventh Amendment immunity in any of its rulings. On appeal, the UDOC Defendants renewed their argument that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Finding that the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Knick v. Twp. of Scott, No. 17-647, 2019 WL 2552486 (U.S. June 21, 2019) that a property owner could bring a federal suit claiming a Fifth Amendment taking without first bringing suit in state court, the Tenth Circuit concluded Knick did not involve Eleventh Amendment immunity, which was the basis of its holding in this case. Therefore, the Court held the takings claim against the UDOC Defendants had to be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; the matter was remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice. View "Williams v. Utah Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

After Sandy City, Utah’s city council adopted an ordinance making it illegal for any person “to sit or stand, in or on any unpaved median, or any median of less than 36 inches for any period of time,” appellant Steve Ray Evans received four citations for violating the Ordinance when he stood on narrow or unpaved medians. Evans filed suit against the City and many of its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the Ordinance was facially invalid because it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Evans also asked the district court to grant his request for a preliminary injunction. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, and after a hearing, the district court denied Evans’ preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment in favor of the City because the Ordinance was a valid time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Evans appealed, arguing the district court incorrectly applied the time, place, or manner standard and wrongly granted summary judgment because the City did not satisfy its evidentiary burden. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment. View "Evans v. Sandy City" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christopher Colbruno was in jail waiting for trial when he needed to be taken to the hospital for an urgent medical condition. Six deputies in the Denver Sheriff’s Department (Defendants) walked him through the public areas of the hospital completely unclothed except for an orange pair of mittens. Complaining that the deputies violated his constitutional rights, he sued them, among others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court disagreed, and Defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. After review, the Court found plaintiff’s complaint alleged facts supporting the inference that the public exposure of his naked body was wholly unjustifiable and therefore sufficed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. "Whether the evidence supports those allegations is a question for further proceedings." View "Colbruno v. Kessler" on Justia Law

Defendant Vincent Mathews appealed three convictions: two for interfering with commerce by robbery and one for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argued on appeal that the district court: (1) improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence related to an unconstitutional search of his historical GPS data that was collected when he was serving a state sentence; (2) abused its discretion when it ruled on the admissibility of this evidence without first holding a suppression hearing; and (3) abused its discretion when it allowed the government’s expert to testify without first holding a Daubert hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Mathews" on Justia Law

Mark Porter shouted racial epithets at Lucas Waldvogel, a seven-year-old African American who lived in Porter’s apartment complex. After hearing Porter’s language, the boy’s father, Michael Waldvogel, confronted Porter, who then assaulted Waldvogel with a stun cane. Shortly thereafter, Waldvogel and his family moved out of the complex. A jury convicted Porter of interfering with Waldvogel’s housing because of Waldvogel’s race, a violation of the Fair Housing Act. The district court sentenced Porter to nine months in prison. He appealed his conviction, and the Government cross-appealed his sentence. On direct appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Porter argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to show he assaulted Waldvogel because of his race; (2) the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecution’s opening statement and closing arguments, the trial evidence, and the jury instructions to make it likely that the jury convicted him for his actions against Lucas rather than Michael Waldvogel, thereby constructively amending the indictment. The Government argued the district court erred in calculating Porter’s sentence. Based on its review of the trial evidence, the Tenth Circuit held a reasonable jury could find Porter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the presentations at trial clearly identified Michael Waldvogel as the alleged victim. The Tenth Circuit agreed the district court erred when it failed to apply a base level of 10 under the applicable sentencing Guideline when Porter’s offense involved “the use or threat of force against a person.” The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

After obtaining his oral consent, law enforcement officials executed a search of William Warwick’s home, looking for a potentially dangerous fugitive. The officers found the fugitive hiding in a closet, and noticed several firearms as well. Warwick claimed the weapons as his own, and, after the officers learned he had a previous felony conviction, they asked him a second time for consent to search the house - this time to secure the firearms. Warwick signed a consent form, and agents discovered ammunition and illegal drugs in addition to the guns. Warwick was charged with unlawful possession of firearms and drugs. At the district court, Warwick argued the evidence was illegally obtained, claiming he never gave oral consent and that his written consent was not voluntary. The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, finding he gave valid consent to the searches. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Warwick" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Stormy Bob Griffith timely filed a counseled notice of appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. He was subsequently appointed different counsel, who later moved to withdraw from the case under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. Thereafter, he appealed pro se. Defendant and his then-wife lived on acreage near Cedaredge, Colorado, where they grew marijuana plants. Ms. Griffith stated that both she and defendant held prescriptions for medical marijuana, which allowed each of them to have 99 marijuana plants. On September 27, 2016, and again on October 2, 2016, law-enforcement officials were called to defendant’s property about shots being fired. Both times officers observed defendant carrying a weapon. Defendant told the responding officers that he was shooting in self-defense or for target practice. On October 4, 2016, authorities executed a search warrant on the property, where they found 478 marijuana plants and 92 kilograms of processed marijuana, as well as 28 firearms and ammunition. A grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with knowingly and intentionally possessing and conspiring to distribute with the intent to distribute, 50 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana and 50 or more marijuana plants. A jury convicted him on all counts, and on October 10, 2017, the district court sentenced him to 97 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant argued on appeal the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. The Tenth Circuit determined much of his argument is unintelligible: from what could be discerned, he contended: (1) the federal Commerce Clause did not confer jurisdiction to prosecute criminal violations; (2) the Tenth Amendment prohibited the federal government from enacting and enforcing criminal laws; (3) he was a “living Flesh and Blood man;” (4) the federal government did not have common-law jurisdiction to prosecute crimes; (5) Congress improperly gave power to a corporation known as the United States of America, whose “special laws—US code etc., were private to the foreign corporation (USA), had no authority over the several Union States of the Republic and/or State Zoned Citizen(s);” and (6) “to establish Article III original jurisdiction and standing, a contract must be introduced into the record when the complaint was filed on October 19, 2016.” The Tenth Circuit denied relief on all those contentions that could be discerned, and dismissed as moot defendant’s pro se application for appeal. View "United States v. Griffith" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Jermaine Patton was the getaway driver in a string of armed robberies that ended in his arrest. An hour after defendant’s arrest, his associate shot a police detective who was investigating the pair’s most recent robbery. Patton pled guilty to: (1) aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery; and (2) carrying of a firearm during the robbery. To account for the shooting, the district court increased his United States Sentencing Guidelines advisory sentencing range by applying: (1) U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) (“the Robbery Guideline”) for infliction of “[p]ermanent or [l]ife-[t]hreatening [b]odily [i]njury;” and (2) U.S.S.G. 3A1.2(c)(1) (“the Official Victim Guideline”) for assault on a law enforcement officer. Patton challenged the district court’s application of these Guidelines, arguing: (1) the Robbery Guideline did not apply because the shooting was not his relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (“the Relevant Conduct Guideline”); and (2) the Official Victim Guideline did not apply because: (a) the shooting was not his relevant conduct; (b) he was not “otherwise accountable” for the shooting; and (c) it did not occur during “immediate flight” from the robbery. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s application of the guidelines, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Patton" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Eliseo Arias-Quijada entered a conditional guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States. He reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his Motion to Assert a Defense of Duress. In this appeal, Arias-Quijada challenged the denial of his motion, arguing he presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue on the affirmative defense of duress. He specifically challenged the district court’s conclusion that he failed to make a bona fide effort to surrender to immigration authorities once the alleged duress lost its coercive force. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Arias-Quijada's motion. View "United States v. Arias-Quijada" on Justia Law

Defendant Ronald Detro Winder was serving a three-year prison sentence for possession of firearms by a convicted felon. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by concluding that his prior conviction in Wyoming for felony interference with a peace officer in 2012, was a crime of violence under section 4B1.2(a)(1) (2016) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Winder" on Justia Law