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

Deputy defendant Johnny Barrientos of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department appealed a district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 28 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by Lucia Fancher, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Nick Dominguez. Fancher alleges Barrientos used excessive force when he shot Dominguez seven times following a confrontation. Dominguez died as a result of one or more gunshot wounds. Barrientos argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The district court granted Barrientos's motion for summary judgment to the extent Fancher's claim arose from the firing of the initial shot, but denied the motion to the extent the claim arose from the subsequent six. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that it lacked jurisdiction to hear two of the three arguments Barrientos raised on appeal. The Court was unpersuaded by Barrientos' third argument. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Fancher v. Barrientos, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Peter Munis appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his request for discretionary removal. Petitioner overstayed his student visa and got a job without authorization which led to initiation of removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded the charge of removability, but sought discretionary relief, arguing that his marriage to an American citizen was grounds to adjust his status, and without relief, would pose an extreme hardship to his wife. The government raised petitioner's criminal history as grounds for removal. The IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Finding that the BIA's discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status absent a legal or constitutional question was unreviewable, the Tenth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Munis v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Rural Water District Number 4 of Douglas County, Kansas and the City of Eudora were in a dispute over water rights. The District contended that Eudora was trying to poach its customers. Because the District was burdened by a USDA-guaranteed loan, Eudora's actions potentially implicated federal law which prohibits municipalities from poaching rural water district customers while the federal loan is in repayment. The District sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the case went to trial and a jury awarded damages to the District. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the verdict, finding that the District violated a Kansas statute that prevented rural water district from obtaining USDA loan guarantees unless the guarantee was "necessary." Soon after the appeal, the Kansas legislature amended the statute and removed the "necessary" requirement. The district court then ruled that the amendment did not apply retroactively, and denied summary judgment to both parties. The retroactivity question was certified to the Tenth Circuit, who upheld the district court's conclusion that the amended state statute did not apply retroactively. Therefore, the District was still bound by the "necessary" requirement. View "Rural Water District No. 4 v. City of Eudora" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Cynthia Pfeifer filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Federal Express Corporation in the District of Kansas, alleging that the company fired her in retaliation for receiving workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff filed suit fifteen months following the termination within the applicable state statute of limitations, but outside the limit of six months enumerated in her employment agreement. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the contract clause was reasonable and was not a violation of public policy. Because no Kansas law appeared to control the outcome of the case, the Tenth Circuit certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the ability of parties to shorten the applicable statute of limitations by contract, and if not, then was the six-month limitation unreasonable in this case? The Kansas Court responded that the contract clause in question here did violate public policy. Because of that answer, the Court did not respond to the Tenth Circuit's second question. In light of these answers, the federal district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arturo Montano-Vega admitted to remaining in the United States illegally, and requested permission to leave voluntarily. Petitioner wanted to avoid a ten-year bar on readmission for aliens who had been "ordered removed." The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case refused the request. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration appeals: if he continued the appeal, he would have to stay in the U.S. for the duration; if he left, the BIA would consider his appeal abandoned and subject petitioner to the ten-year ban. Petitioner elected to leave, and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner appealed the BIA's decision to the Tenth Circuit challenging the application of 8 C.F.R. 1003.4 to his case in addition to the immigration judge's refusal to allow him to leave voluntarily. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's challenge to the BIA order because by leaving, his appeal was deemed withdrawn, leaving the court without jurisdiction to hear the case. View "Montano-Vega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Elia Ibarra was ordered removed by the Department of Homeland Security for a Colorado conviction on child abuse. The events leading up to her conviction were unclear, but it was undisputed that petitioner's children were unintentionally left home alone while she was at work. No child was injured. Petitioner requested discretionary relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case decided that she was ineligible cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit to review the immigration judge's decision that found her Colorado conviction for "child abuse-negligence-no injury" was the same as (or close enough to be categorically considered) "child abuse, neglect or abandonment" as codified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the Board of Immigration Appeals' then-current interpretation of "child abuse, neglect and abandonment" extended the full range of conduct criminalized by the Colorado statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the BIA's decision rendering petitioner ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. View "Ibarra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant George Lopez conducted mediations in a program created and managed by the Administrative Office of Courts of the State of Utah. In 2006, he was removed from the panel of mediators that mediated certain domestic matters. Plaintiff brought suit in federal district court alleging that his removal from that list of mediators violated his right to due process and his right to equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. He also alleged breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Upon review of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Tenth Circuit found that because Plaintiff's primary argument was based on his alleged contractual rights as a public employee, and because the Court found that there was no implied contract (because evidence in the record revealed Plaintiff was not a public employee), Plaintiff's arguments necessarily failed. View "Lopez v. Admin Office of the Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Tyla Newbold appealed a magistrate judge's order that granted her Social Security benefits from October 2006 to November 2007, but denied them thereafter. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration determined Plaintiff had been disabled during that period due to physical and mental impairments, but that she recovered and the disability ceased. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) used the proper medical-improvement standard in deciding Plaintiff ceased being disabled. Finding that the ALJ used the proper standard, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Newbold v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Shannon Cavanaugh suffered a serious head injury after she was tasered by a Woods Cross City police officer. She sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The jury found for the City and the officer who tasered her. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff argued the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to exclude certain testimony from the officer concerning his beliefs prior to using the taser; (2) in refusing to grant Plaintiff a new trial due to insufficient evidence she was an immediate threat; (2) in refusing to instruct the jury on what constitutes "resisting arrest;" and (4) refusing to submit Plaintiff's excessive force question to the jury. Rejecting all of Plaintiff's ground for appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court. View "Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant Keith Cressman objected to the image on the standard Oklahoma license plate. He believed the image of a Native American shooting an arrow toward the sky (a depiction of a sculpture entitled "Sacred Rain Arrow") was religious speech he did not believe in and did not want to display on his vehicle. Oklahoma imposes sanctions for covering the image, or a separate fee for a vanity plate that has no image. Because he must either display the image or pay an additional fee, Appellant argued speech was being imposed on him in violation of his First Amendment rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court who initially dismissed Appellant's complaint: (1) the image on the license plates is ideological, symbolic speech that qualified for First Amendment protection; and (2) the district court erred by assuming or speculating about certain facts rather than accepting them as true for consideration of Appellant's motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cressman v. Thompson, et al" on Justia Law