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

Appellant Michael McGaughy pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and the district court sentenced him to 46 months' imprisonment. Months later, Appellant filed a "2255" motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and asked for resentencing. The district court conferred informally with the parties, and the government agreed to re-sentencing. At re-sentencing, the district court again sentenced Appellant to 46 months' imprisonment, and dismissed the 2255 motion as moot. Appellant then filed another motion to correct sentence under both Rule 35(a) and 2255, this time arguing that at re-sentencing the government presented materially false information regarding his efforts to cooperate with the government before pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the re-sentencing raised three related issues: (1) whether the court retained jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant under 2255 because it never granted the petition (instead dismissing it as moot after re-sentencing); (2) whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on Appellant's Rule 35(a) claim after the Rule’s 14-day time limit lapsed; (3) whether the district court properly denied Appellant's second 2255 claim. The Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to re-sentence Appellant, but that his challenge to his re-sentencing was untimely because Rule 35’s 14-day time limitation is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's 2255 claim, vacated the denial of his Rule 35(a) claim and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss the Rule 35(a) claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. McGaughy" on Justia Law

A New Mexico jury convicted former prison guard Defendant-Appellant John Gould of two counts of depriving an inmate of his rights under color of law, and two counts of filing a false report. The convictions arose out of Defendant's use of excessive force against two inmates in two different detention centers and his filing of false reports to cover the incidents up. On appeal, Defendant sought reversal of all the charges against him, arguing that the delay between his conviction and the entry of the final judgment violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence. Finding no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights, and finding that if there was an error in excluding the evidence, it was harmless, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. View "United States v. Gould" on Justia Law

In 2005, pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act's administrative provisions, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded lifetime benefits to Merrill Lambright and survivor benefits to his widow, Delores Ashmore. Lambright's claims arose out of his employment with Petitioner Bridger Coal Company. In 2006, a three-member panel of the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded to the ALJ for reconsideration. In 2008, the ALJ denied benefits on both the lifetime and survivor claims. In 2009, a three-member panel of the Board reversed this decision and reinstated the 2005 award of benefits. The issue on appeal was the characterization of Ms. Ashmore's 2002 request for a modification in her survivor benefits: "it appears the director interpreted Ashmore's motion as a motion for modification based on change in conditions, but only to the extent Ashmore alleged she was entitled to additional (survivor) benefits due to Lambright's death. To the extent the order granting modification was based on a change in conditions, the ruling only implicated the claim for survivor benefits, not Lambright's original claim for lifetime benefits." On reconsideration en banc, the full five-member Board was unable to reach a disposition in which at least three permanent members concurred. As a result, the 2009 panel decision stood. Petitioner appealed, challenging the scope of the 2009 panel's authority to review the 2008 ALJ decision, the standard used in determining whether to award benefits, and the onset-date determination. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the 2009 panel decision. View "Bridger Coal Company v. United States Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (MCN) sued the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC), three commissioners and the Oklahoma Attorney General (collectively, State), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on numerous claims challenging three Oklahoma statutes that tax and regulate the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products as a violative of federal law and tribal sovereignty. The OTC and the Attorney General brought motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed MCN's claims against all Defendant's based on the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, or alternatively, for failing to state a claim under Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Tenth Circuit found that the Eleventh Amendment did not preclude MCN's suit, but that in its complaint, the Nation failed to state a claim. View "Muscogee (Creek) v. Henry, et al" on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) appealed a judgment of the district court that declined to enforce an administrative subpoena against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF). On appeal, the EEOC argued the district court abused its discretion because it "applied erroneous legal principles and ignored record evidence." This case arose from an ADA discrimination claim filed by Gregory Graves and Thomas Palizzi. Each alleged they were not hired as conductors or conductor trainees based on a perceived disability. The EEOC launched an investigation and issued a subpoena to BNSF. During the course of its investigation, the EEOC expanded the parameters of its investigation without notice or explanation. BNSF did not comply with the administrative subpoena, and the EEOC applied to the district court for enforcement. Finding no abuse of discretion or a misapplication of the law, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court: "Nothing prevent[ed] the EEOC from investigating the charges filed by Mr. Graves and Mr. Palizzi, and then . . . expanding its search. Alternatively, nothing prevent[ed] the EEOC from aggregating the information it possesses in the form of a Commissioner's Charge. . . . But nationwide recordkeeping data is not 'relevant to' charges of individual disability discrimination filed by two men who applied for the same type of job in the same state, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion." View "EEOC v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad" on Justia Law

Decedent Charles Gray sought treatment for epilepsy at Defendant University of Colorado Hospital. In the course of his withdrawal from medication, hospital staff left Decedent unattended and he died after suffering a seizure. Plaintiffs, decedent’s estate and family members, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging that the hospital (and affiliated doctors, nurses, and staff) deprived Decedent of life without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a constitutional claim. Plaintiffs appealed. Applying the appropriate legal standards, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but for reasons somewhat different than those of the district court: "The state actor’s affirmative act creating the danger or rendering the victim more vulnerable to it does not constitute a constitutional deprivation." View "Gray v. University of Colo. Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Donna Morris brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for unlawful arrest and excessive force on behalf of her deceased husband, William Morris III, against Defendants Officer Jaime Noe and the City of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. She alleged Defendants violated her husband's rights when Noe forceably arrested him and caused him injury. Defendant Noe moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied his motion. Defendant Noe then appealed. Finding that Mr. Morris "posed no threat to Noe or others," and that the officer had reason to believe Mr. Morris was "at most, a misdemeanant," the Tenth Circuit held Defendant was not entitled to qualified to immunity on either of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court. View "Morris v. Noe" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Mendoza-Lopez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Steven Romero brought suit against Defendants Jeremy Story, Manuel Frias, and Vincent Shadd, Las Cruces, New Mexico law enforcement officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied Defendants' claim to qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to excessive force, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Romero v. Storey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Jerry Thomas was a prisoner serving time in an Oklahoma state prison. He brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and sought to appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claims that employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections violated his constitutional rights during a period of time when he was incarcerated at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff had three "strikes" (as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)) because he had had three prior civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Specifically, the Court addressed whether Plaintiff should have been assessed a third strike based on the district court's 2008 dismissal of a previous 1983 action . The Court adopted the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in "Pointer v. Wilkinson" (502 F.3d 363) and assessed a third strike against Plaintiff. View "Thomas v. Parker" on Justia Law