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

Plaintiff-Appellant Adriana Berneike appealed the district court’s dismissal of her Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Utah Consumer Sales Protection Act (UCSPA), and breach of contract claims asserted against CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi). In 2010, Plaintiff faxed twenty-eight different letters to Citi, her mortgage loan servicer, asserting that Citi was incorrectly billing her for overcharges and improper fees. She faxed a two more rounds of different letters, insisting Citi was overcharging her. Citi replied that Plaintiff's account was correct and that taxes and an escrow shortage caused billing fluctuation. Several months later, Plaintiff sent a third round of fort-seven different letters to Citi claiming billing errors. Altogether, Plaintiff faxed more than one hundred letters to Citi, and claimed that despite paying in full every bill she received, she continued to be overcharged and was facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. Plaintiff then filed suit in Utah state court. Among other damages, she sought $1,000 per violation of RESPA. Citi removed the case to federal court, and the court subsequently granted Citi's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. Finding that the federal court did not err by dismissing Plaintiff's claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Gray Peterson, a resident of Washington, applied for a concealed handgun license (CHL) from the ex officio sheriff of Denver, Colorado. Peterson's application was accordingly denied, prompting him to file suit against the Denver sheriff and Colorado's executive director of the Department of Public Safety. Peterson claimed that Colorado's policy with respect to non-resident CHL applicants violates the Second Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and several other constitutional provisions. The district court concluded that the executive director of the Department of Public Safety was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because he had no connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute. Upon review of the district court order, the Tenth Circuit agreed with that conclusion. "In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections. We reach the same conclusion with respect to Peterson's claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is coterminous with his right to travel claim." View "Peterson v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Robert Garcia appealed a district court order that denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. On appeal, he argued that the warrant was invalid because: (1) it was stale; and (2) the address on the warrant did not match that of his residence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the warrant was executed before it became stale and within the time constraints of the federal rules. Further, because the warrant adopted the supporting affidavit's description of the residence, "the address mismatch [was] of no consequence." View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Former inmate Plaintiff-Appellee Tracy Keith filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of her rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was an inmate at the Topeka Correctional Facility between November 2006 and May 2010. While there, she participated in a vocational training program. Her instructor, Ananstacio Gallardo, engaged in unlawful sexual acts with her in 2007, and she became pregnant as a result. The Topeka Police Department then conducted an investigation which ultimately led to Mr. Gallardo pleading guilty to a charge of unlawful sexual relations and two charges of trafficking contraband. In 2011, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint alleging that prison employees violated her constitutional rights. Specifically, she alleged that Defendants created and allowed a policy or culture of sexual misconduct at the prison which placed her at substantial risk of harm, failed to take reasonable measures to abate the culture of sexual misconduct, and were deliberately indifferent to this substantial risk of harm. The district court granted qualified immunity to all remaining Defendants except Richard Koerner, the former warden, and Mr. Gallardo and entered a default judgment against Mr. Gallardo. Mr. Koerner appealed the district court's denial of his motion for qualified immunity. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. View "Keith v. Koerner, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Shawn Battle filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) following Amendments 750 and 759 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively adjusted his advisory Guidelines range. The district court granted the motion in part, granting a two-level reduction rather than the four-level reduction Petitioner requested. Although the court found at Petitioner's first sentencing that he was responsible for more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, the court did not make a specific quantity finding. At resentencing, the court held that Petitioner was responsible for 3.4 kilograms. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit rejected Petitioner's argument that the district court was barred from engaging in supplemental calculations of drug quantity in the 3582(c)(2) proceeding. However, the Court agreed that the record of the original sentencing, including the district court’s prior findings, did not support the attribution of 3.4 kilograms. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. View "United States v. Battle" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Lee Wilson was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) ordered dismissal of his robbery conviction but affirmed his murder conviction and death sentence. Defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, but the district court denied his application. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, but vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. After holding the evidentiary hearing, the district court ruled that Defendant had failed to establish that his trial counsel had performed deficiently or that counsel's alleged failures had affected the outcome of the penalty phase, and it denied the writ. The district court granted Defendant a certificate of appealability (COA) on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and Defendant appealed. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing before the district court, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendant did not show that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies in his counsel's performance at trial. The Court therefore affirmed the denial of Defendant's habeas application. View "Wilson v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Everett Rich, III, pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Because he had been convicted of three predicate offenses, he qualified for enhanced punishment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 180 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed the sentencing enhancement claiming: (1) his juvenile adjudication was "dismissed" by Oklahoma courts and should not have been counted as a prior conviction under the ACCA; and (2) the ACCA violated substantive due process by considering these older, juvenile adjudications. Disagreeing with Defendant's arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed his sentence enhancement. View "United State v. Rich" on Justia Law

Petitioner Laura Conroy filed this Title VII lawsuit against her employer, the United States Forest Service, after it (among other things) filled an open position with a male employee, instead of her. The district court excluded the testimony of Petitioner's two experts and granted summary judgment to the Forest Service. Petitioner did not have a college degree. She applied for the INFRA Program Manager position in the administrative series. She was found to be qualified, and her name, along with that of one other qualified applicant, was passed on to Larry Larson, the head of the group where the new position would be located. Mr. Larson, however, decided to readvertise the position. He would later explain that his reason for doing so was to broaden the pool of applicants. A revised announcement was issued modifying the job requirement noted above, replacing the words "[c]omprehensive knowledge and skills in" with simply "[k]nowledge of." The new advertisement drew interest from a greater number of applicants, and four were certified as sufficiently qualified for the position. Petitioner was certified under the administrative announcement, and three others were certified under the professional announcement. Among the latter three candidates was Daniel Hager, who had not applied when the position was originally advertised. Petitioner filed a grievance when she did not receive the position. Mr. Hager left the INFRA Program Manager position, and the position was readvertised. The position was advertised solely in the professional series. Although Petitioner applied again, she was deemed not qualified, and management ultimately selected Andrea Gehrke. Petitioner filed a second formal grievance, alleging that the decision to advertise the position solely in the professional series was made in order to retaliate against her for filing the first grievance. After exhausting administrative remedies, Petitioner filed suit in federal district court pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She asserted various individual and class claims arising out of the agency's hiring decisions. The district court ultimately ruled in the agency's favor. Upon review, finding no abuse of the district court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Petitioner's claims. View "Conroy v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roger Schanzenbach owned several properties in the town of Opal on which he intended to install mobile manufactured homes. He applied for permits with town authorities. The town council issued several building permits to Plaintiff but shortly thereafter enacted an ordinance that included a provision banning the installation of any manufactured home that was older than 10 years at the time of the relevant permit application (the 10-Year Rule). When the permits were about to lapse and Plaintiff requested an extension, the town council denied his request. It also rejected his applications for new permits because the proposed houses were more than 10 years old. Plaintiff then sued the town and town council asserting that the 10-Year Rule was preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 as well as a variety of constitutional claims. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised claims based on preemption, equal protection, and substantive due process. Upon review, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on these claims. The 10-Year Rule was not preempted and the rule was sufficiently rational to survive an equal-protection or substantive-due-process challenge. View "Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roger Schanzenbach owned several properties in the town of LaBarge on which he intended to install mobile manufactured homes. He applied for permits with town authorities. The town council initially granted him a building permit for one property but revoked it about two weeks later and then enacted an ordinance that included a provision banning the installation of any manufactured home older than 10 years at the time of the relevant permit application (the 10-Year Rule). Both of Plaintiff's homes were more than 10 years old. The town council denied Plaintiff's applications for a building permit, a variance, and a conditional-use permit to enable him to install the homes despite the 10-Year Rule. Plaintiff thereafter sued, arguing a variety of constitutional claims as well as a claim that the 10-Year Rule was preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised issues regarding the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, procedural due process, preemption, municipal authority to enact the 10-Year Rule, and attorney fees. Upon review, the Court held that the takings claim was unripe, the due-process claim failed because Plaintiff did not have a protected property interest, the 10-Year Rule was not preempted, the town had authority to enact the rule, and the attorney-fee issue was moot. View "Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge" on Justia Law