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

Jose Hernandez, Jr., and Salvador Hernandez were killed by a motorist while they were performing road construction in Oklahoma. Their representative sued their employer, Duit Construction Company, and the motorist and alleged a substantive due process claims against multiple Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) employees. All ODOT employees (except the director and the resident engineer on the construction project) were dismissed by the district court. The question before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the two remaining employees were entitled to qualified immunity. The district judge said no; but because the alleged facts revealed no constitutional violation, the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "Hernandez v. Ridley, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee Brandon Blackmon brought a 42 U.S.C. 1982 action against various members of the juvenile detention center in Sedgwick, Kansas, alleging they violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights as a pre-trial detainee when he was taken there as an eleven-year-old. He claimed that the staff regularly used a "Pro-Straint Restraining Chair, Violent Prisoner Model" sometimes as a legitimate effort to stop him from committing suicide, but mostly, as plaintiff contended, to punish him. The chair is equipped with wrist, chest and ankle restraints; as a juvenile detainee, plaintiff was 4'11' and 96 pounds. The district court denied defendants' motion for dismissal based on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit, maintaining that the district court erred in holding that the facts, when viewed in a light favorable to plaintiff, suggested that defendants sometimes exceeded the scope of qualified immunity. After its review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in all respects except one: the Court directed the district court to grant qualified immunity to defendant Sutton on plaintiff's "failure to transfer" claim. View "Blackmon v. Sutton, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants William Pickard and Clyde Apperson appealed the district court’s decision to deny their motion to unseal the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)’s file on one of its confidential informants. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in the manner in which it denied Defendants’ motion to unseal the file: (1) by failing to require the United States to articulate a significant interest in continuing to keep the DEA records sealed; (2) by not applying the presumption that judicial records should be open to the public; and (3) by not considering whether unsealing a redacted version of the DEA records would adequately serve the as yet unarticulated government interest in keeping the records sealed. For these three reasons, the Court reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendants’ motion to unseal the records and remanded the case for the district court’s further consideration of that motion. View "United States v. Pickard" on Justia Law

George Roberts said IBM fired him because of his age. He argued an instant message exchange between two of the company’s human resources managers referencing his "shelf life" played a direct role in his eventual discharge. The Tenth Circuit concluded that after its review of the evidence presented at trial, the term "shelf life" had nothing to do with Roberts’s age and everything to do with his workload. "Once its euphemisms and acronyms are translated into English, the instant message conversation unmistakably suggests that 'shelf life' was nothing worse than an inartful reference to Mr. Roberts’s queue of billable work. And that is more than enough to preclude it from amounting to direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act." View "Roberts v. IBM" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bjorn Myklatun and his company, Plaintiff Oil Innovation, brought claims of tortious interference, fraud, and civil conspiracy against Chemical Equipment and Specialties, Inc. (CESI); its parent company, Flotek Industries; Flotek president Todd Sanner; and former Flotek CEO Jerry Dumas. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the claim of tortious interference and one of Plaintiffs’ two theories of fraud. A jury entered a verdict in favor of all Defendants on the civil conspiracy claim. The jury also found in favor of Sanner and Dumas on the narrowed claim of fraud, but it found for Plaintiffs on the fraud claim against CESI and Flotek. Plaintiffs appealed, also raising various evidentiary and other challenges relating to their damages on the fraud claim, and they contended the jury’s verdict on the civil conspiracy and fraud claims was facially inconsistent and required a new trial. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court did not address those other arguments. View "Myklatun, et al v. Halliburton Energy Services, et al" on Justia Law

Michael Lobato was a probationary employee at the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). Before completing his probationary period, Lobato was fired. Lobato, who is Hispanic and of Mexican ancestry, alleged that the proffered rationales were pretextual and that NMED was in fact motivated by racial and national origin prejudice. He also alleged NMED wanted to punish him for whistleblowing. The district court granted summary judgment to NMED on all claims, and the Tenth Circuit agreed with that decision. Lobato failed to raise a genuine dispute that NMED’s decision to terminate him was motivated by anything other than the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons NMED offered in its termination letter. View "Lobato v. State of NM Environment Dept., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Michael Lynn Cash was pulled over after police observed him commit a traffic violation. During the stop, police saw in plain view an artificial bladder device. He also learned that defendant was on the way to take a drug test for his federal probation officer. Suspecting that defendant was planning on using the device to defeat a urine drug test, police detained him until another officer arrived at the scene. Shortly after the second officer arrived, police observed a firearm in plain view in the back seat of defendant's car. A scuffle ensued in an effort to take defendant into custody and to render the firearm safe. Defendant was eventually subdued and placed in the back of the police cruiser. He was not given Miranda warnings. Officers conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle and found methamphetamine, Lortab, and used syringes. A federal grand jury ultimately indicted defendant on three counts: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and as a felon in possession of firearm. Defendant moved to suppress both (1) the physical evidence obtained from the search and (2) his statements to the officers while he was seated in the back of the police cruiser. The district court denied both motions, holding that neither defendant's Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights were violated. A jury convicted defendant on all counts. He appealed the district court's denial of both motions to suppress. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Cash" on Justia Law

Respondent Stanislav Dobrev from sought a custodial arrangement from a Utah State court more favorable than the arrangement he received from a French court a few weeks prior. Petitioner and Respondent divorced in France; Petitioner found work in Belgium, Respondent found work in Utah. Petitioner was granted leave to move with her children to Belgium by the French court. Prior to waiving his right to appeal the French order, Respondent picked up the children and brought them to the United States for a pre-approved vacation. The children were scheduled to return to Belgium, but Respondent instead filed for “Emergency Jurisdiction and Custody” in Utah to challenge the French court’s order. A week after holding a preliminary hearing, the district court, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing legislation, The International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), summarily granted Petitioner petition for return of the children. On top of that, the district court awarded Petitioner fees, costs, and expenses. Respondent appealed to the Tenth Circuit, generally claiming a denial of due process based on the district court’s refusal to provide him an evidentiary hearing. The Tenth Circuit noted that Respondent alleged or could have alleged before the French court many of the facts he alleged in his state petition. Given the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit saw “nothing to suggest the district court stepped beyond the bounds of its discretion in awarding Petitioner her fees, costs, and expenses. Based upon all [the Court has] written [. . .], much of which certainly suggests Respondent [was] not blameless for the current state of affairs,” the Court could not say the award was “clearly inappropriate.” The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "West v. Dobrev" on Justia Law

Julio Ponce appealed an Oklahoma district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant that Ponce claimed issued without probable cause. A federal grand jury charged Ponce with: (1) Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to Distribute; (2) Possession of Firearms and Ammunition by an Alien Illegally in the United States; and (3) Maintaining Drug Involved Premises. Ponce moved to suppress the evidence officers seized at his home, arguing that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained “nothing of consequence . . . to provide the necessary probable cause to search [Ponce]’s home.” After his suppression motion was denied, Ponce pled guilty to all three counts of the indictment pursuant to a conditional plea agreement reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Ponce was sentenced to seventy-eight months of imprisonment. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the executing officers acted in good-faith reliance upon the warrant to search Ponce’s home, and therefore that the district court properly denied Ponce’s motion to suppress the evidence against him. View "United States v. Ponce" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arturo Velasco appealed an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because petitioner had been granted suspension of deportation during prior deportation proceedings, he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Velasco v. Holder" on Justia Law