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

This appeal arose from a suit filed by the United States that asked the district court to reduce certain of Defendant-Appellant Jack Wilson’s tax liabilities to judgment, to set aside a fraudulent transfer of real property from Wilson to Defendant Joey Lee Dobbs-Wilson, and to enforce the government’s new liens, as well as one preexisting tax lien, against the real property by ordering a sale. Wilson appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States. Wilson argued in his response to the government’s motion for summary judgment and in his cross-motion for summary judgment that Ms. Dobbs-Wilson was not his nominee when he transferred the property to her in 1998 and, as a result, a 1997 lien became invalid when the government mistakenly released it in 2003, after he no longer owned the property. Assuming the validity of Wilson's argument, and after supplemental briefing on the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Wilson failed to demonstrate any injury to him that the Court could redress. Having determined that the Court lacked jurisdiction over his appeal, the case was dismissed.

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.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ark Initiative, Alex Forsythe, and Paul Smith appealed a district court's judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, the U.S. Forest Service and its Chief. The district court upheld the Defendants' acceptance of a 2003 Master Development Plan (MDP), as well as a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and decisions concerning a 2006 Snowmass Ski Improvements Project. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants violated NEPA by approving the project without examining certain cumulative effects-- namely, effects on water resources, endangered fish, forest habitats, and "other resources." Defendants countered that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their claims, and that the NEPA does not require a federal agency to examine the cumulative effects of its proposed action with those of an unrelated proposal where the proposed action will not affect the resource concerns pressed by the Plaintiffs. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

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.

Plaintiff Lacauna Adams, on behalf of her minor son D.J.W., appeared pro se seeking review of a district court’s judgment that affirmed the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of D.J.W.’s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. In late 2006, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI benefits for her son who was five years old at that time. In it, she alleged he became disabled in 2004 due to asthma. The agency denied the application initially and on reconsideration. Although neither side raised the issue, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff could proceed pro se on behalf of her minor child to challenge in federal court the administrative denial of SSI benefits, but the Court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of those benefits.

Petitioner Arther Deyke Kasonso petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion for reconsideration. His petition raised a single, narrow issue: whether the BIA abused its discretion in declining to apply the "disfavored group analysis" adopted by some of the other circuits, to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to restriction on removal. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, entered the United States in 1994 on a non-immigrant visa and overstayed his six-month authorization. He received a notice to appear, conceded removability, and filed applications for asylum, restriction on removal, and relieve under the Convention Against Torture. He alleged past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia because he is a Christian. After a hearing, an immigration judge denied his applications for relief from removal, but granted him voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration and request to reopen his case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner did not argue that the BIA failed to follow its established policy to apply Tenth Circuit precedent or misapplied that law in his case. Nor did he provide any other basis for us to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the BIA's decision and dismissed Petitioner's request for review.

Defendants the U.S. Forest Service and Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants several Environmental Groups appealed a district court's order setting aside and permanently enjoining the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) which the Forest Service promulgated in 2001. In setting aside the Rule, the district court held that the rule violated the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). On appeal, the Forest Service and the Environmental Groups asked the Tenth Circuit to hold that the Roadless Rule was not promulgated in violation of the Wilderness Act or NEPA. Furthermore, even if the Court concluded that the rule was promulgated in violation of federal law, they asked the Court to nevertheless reverse the district court's order establishing a permanent nationwide injunction. Plaintiff-Appellee the State of Wyoming and Intervenor-Appellee the Colorado Mining Association (CMA) asked the Court to affirm the district court's order on the grounds that rule did not violate the Wilderness Act and NEPA. Upon extensive review of the parties briefs and the applicable legal authorities, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's order that granted Plaintiff declaratory relief and issued a permanent injunction, and remanded the case back to the district court to vacate the injunction.

Petitioner Sushma KC sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen or reconsider its previous decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After arriving in this country, KC filed timely applications for asylum, but on June 23, 2008, an immigration judge (IJ) denied her applications, and ordered her to voluntarily depart or be removed to her native Nepal. In his oral decision, the IJ noted the threats she received: "the most recent and graphic of them was that her head would be cut off [by Maoist insurgents] unless she paid 300,000 rupees." The IJ concluded, however, that KC failed to satisfy the "one central reason" test (see 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) which required showing that one of the central reasons the Maoists targeted her was because of her political beliefs. KC appealed to the BIA, which upheld the IJ’s decision. The BIA concluded that "[t]he Immigration Judge reasonably determined based on the record as a whole that the Maoists’ demands for money were acts of extortion not related to the respondent’s political opinion." In addition, the BIA denied KC’s motion to remand her case to the IJ so that he could consider additional evidence concerning her husband’s disappearance. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s analysis without further explanation, both to dismiss KC’s appeal and to deny reconsideration, the Tenth Circuit held that the BIA’s decision lacked "rational explanation." Accordingly, the Court held that the BIA abused its discretion, and remanded the case for further consideration. The Court affirmed the BIA in all other respects.

Sorenson Communications, Inc. challenged the 2010-2011 rates set by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) to compensate Video Relay Service providers, including Sorenson. Video Relay Service (VRS) is a type of telecommunication relay service (TRS), "which enables a person with a hearing disability to remotely communicate with a hearing person by means of a video link and a communications assistant." FCC regulations provide certain minimum standards that VRS providers must meet. Among these requirements, VRS providers must operate every day, twenty-four hours a day, and must answer 80 percent of all calls within 120 seconds. TRS customers do not pay to access the service. Instead, TRS providers are compensated by the TRS Fund at a rate determined by the FCC. The TRS Fund is financed by interstate telecommunications providers on the basis of interstate enduser telecommunications revenues. Until 2007, the Commission set VRS rates annually, which resulted in significant variation in compensation each year. In 2007, the FCC adopted a three-tiered rate structure for compensating VRS providers, with rates that declined as the number of minutes per month increased. Sorenson asked the FCC to stay its 2010 Order which retained the tiered structure of the 2007 order, but reduced rates on all tiers. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied Sorenson's petition for review because the Commission’s order was consistent with its statutory mandate and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Appellant Gabriela Cordova-Soto petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(5). Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States as a child and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991 at the age of 13. In 2005, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Appellant charging her as removable on three grounds: (1) as an aggravated felon; (2) as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude; and (3) as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. Appellant had three Kansas state-law convictions, including a 2005 conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a suspended jail term of twenty months and eighteen months' probation. Appellant was found in 2010 in Wichita, Kansas and identified as an alien who had previously been removed. No criminal charges for illegal reentry were lodged against her, but DHS issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, advising Appellant that she was subject to removal. Appellant argued to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) her underlying removal order was not lawful; and (2) her reentry into the United States after her previous removal was not illegal. On these bases she maintained that reinstatement of her previous removal order was precluded. Upon review of the DHS's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded Appellant failed to establish that DHS misconstrued the meaning of "reenters the United States illegally" in Sec. 1231 (a)(5): she was removed from the United States in 2005, and she admittedly reentered the country without the Attorney General's authorization shortly thereafter. Because she could not have entered the United States legally at that time, her reentry was illegal and she was therefore subject to reinstatement of her previous removal order. Accordingly, the Court denied Appellant's petition for review.