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

Plaintiffs Kansas Judicial Review, the Honorable Charles Hard and Robb Rumsey appealed a district court order that denied their motion for attorney's fees. The Tenth Circuit was asked to decide whether Plaintiffs qualified as "prevailing parties" when they secured a preliminary injunction that afforded some of the relief sought in their complaint. The court granted the injunction after finding Plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The actions of third parties mooted the case before the Tenth Circuit had the opportunity to determine the validity of the preliminary injunction on appeal. Upon review of the trial record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the preliminary injunction conferred prevailing-party status on Plaintiffs, and reversed the judgment of the lower court that held otherwise. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs David Scherer, John Licht, Mike Lopez, Barbara Brickley and Aaron Johnson brought suit to challenge the U.S. Forest Service's "amenity fee" through which it charges visitors to Mount Evans national park in Colorado. Plaintiffs asked the Tenth Circuit to strike down the Forrest Service's fee policy as facially inconsistent with Congress's directions and to hold it null and void in all applications. Upon review, the Court found it cannot strike the fee: "for better or worse, the Legislature has said that the Service may - sometimes - charge visitors. . . so some lawful applications of the policy do exist. . . [the fee] might well be susceptible to a winning challenge as applied to certain particular visitors, perhaps even the plaintiffs themselves. But that's a path the plaintiffs haven't asked us to explore and so one we leave for another day." The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' case.

The primary issue in this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was whether the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review on "order for relief" entered by a bankruptcy judge for the District of Delaware. The Delaware judge entered the order after venue was transferred to the District of Colorado. The parties agreed that the order should be vacated on the ground that it is void because it was issued after the transfer was complete. However, the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the governing statute provides that an appeal of a decision by a bankruptcy judge "shall only be taken only to the district court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is serving." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and affirmed its decision.

Pro se prisoner Albert Cramer petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The lower court denied the application on the ground that his claims were procedurally defaulted because Petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies and his claims would now be procedurally barred if pursued in state court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court's decision." Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

The City of Newkirk and Kay Electric Cooperative both provide electricity to Oklahoma consumers. "When a city acts as a market participant it generally has to play by the same rules as everyone else. It can't abuse its monopoly power or conspire to suppress competition. Except sometimes it can. If the city can show that its parent state authorized it to upend normal competition [. . . ] the city enjoys immunity from federal antitrust liability. The problem for the City of Newkirk in this case is that the state has done no such thing." Kay sued Newkirk alleging that the City engaged in unlawful tying and attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1,2. The district court refused to allow the case to proceed, granting Newkirk's motion to dismiss after it found the City "immune" from liability as a matter of law. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the state did not authorize Newkirk to enter the local electricity market as it did in this case. The Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Duane Barber (Barber) appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of benefits claiming that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to properly consider the evidence he presented in support of his claim. Plaintiff claimed he was disabled by schizophrenia, anti-social personality disorder, depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder. Barber eventually applied for Supplemental Security Income but the ALJ concluded at step five of the five-step evaluation process that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, and a magistrate judge, acting on the parties' consent, affirmed. Plaintiff then brought his appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review of the administrative record, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ properly explained his findings throughout. Because the record supported the ALJ's decision in this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for benefits.

Plaintiff Billy Merrifield brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against his former employer Defendant Board of Commissioners for Santa Fe. In his suit, he alleged he had been denied procedural due process with respect to the County's pre termination hearing process when he was fired from his position as a Youth Services Administrator. His complaint also alleged that he was fired in retaliation for retaining an attorney. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and set aside a state administrative decision to award him back pay. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff failed to show that the County's pre termination process was constitutionally inadequate and that his association with an attorney lead to his termination.

The issue central to this case stemmed from a contract dispute between two landowners and the City of Casper Wyoming as to whether the landowners were obligated to reimburse the City for certain street improvements. When the landowners did not comply with the City's demand for payment, the City recorded deficiency notices in the local property records on their lots. The landowners sued the City, claiming the notices violated their rights to due process and equal protection. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the ground that the landowners had not shown the existence of a protected property interest and that the deficiency notices did not constitute a deprivation of any right. Upon review by the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that the landowners demonstrated a disputed issue of fact as to whether the City harmed their property interests. The Court remanded the case for consideration of whether that deprivation violated the Due Process Clause. However, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the equal protection claim.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered around the right to provide water service to certain customers in and around Guthrie, Oklahoma. Plaintiff-Appellee Rural Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Management District No. 1 claimed that its right to serve these customers was grounded in state law and protected from competition from encroaching water districts by federal statute. Plaintiff contended that Defendant-Appellants City of Guthrie and the Guthrie Public Works Authority violated the federal law by extending water service to customers located within its designated service area. The Court consolidated several challenges to multiple district court orders in this matter. In sum, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings with respect to what the federal law requires in terms of water service, and for findings on the degree to which Plaintiff was compliant in terms of its service to the City.

Plaintiff Rosemary Kilinski sought social security benefits in 1999. The Commissioner determined that she was disabled as of October 2003. In this case, Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment that upheld the Commissioner's determination that her disability onset date was in 2003 rather than 1999. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the Administrative Law Judge erred in assessing Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.