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

Defendant Baker Hughes Inteq, Inc. appealed the district court's order that denied its motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff EEC, Inc. and Baker contracted for Baker to provide drilling equipment for use in EEC's horizontal oil and natural gas well in Oklahoma. The equipment was lost in the well. EEC filed suit in Oklahoma state court alleging that Baker’s negligence damaged its well. Baker removed the case to federal court, invoked diversity jurisdiction, and filed counterclaims for the value of its equipment. Baker also sought to compel arbitration. Baker prepared and EEC signed numerous documents containing arbitration clauses which were ultimately ruled as unenforceable by the district court. The court also denied Baker’s motion to reconsider. Further, the court enjoined Baker from proceeding with arbitration, and stayed further district court proceedings pending appeal of its orders. Upon review of the arbitration clauses at issue in this case, the Tenth Circuit found disagreed that because there were differences in the multiple clauses they were rendered unenforceable. The Court reversed the district court's judgment denying Baker's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case with directions to order the parties to pursue arbitration. View "EEC, Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Anthony Branch sought a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. Petitioner was convicted on one count of second-degree burglary. During opening arguments to the jury in the sentencing phase, the government referred to the length of Petitioner's previous sentences for other crimes. The court declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury. Petitioner then waived his right to be sentenced by a jury. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a twenty-year term of imprisonment. Petitioner filed a direct appeal with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), where he was represented by different counsel. His sole argument on appeal was that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds. The OCCA affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Petitioner then turned to the federal court by filing a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Petitioner's petition raised claims for relief that he had not yet exhausted in state court. A magistrate judge recommended that the case be administratively closed rather than dismissed so that Petitioner could reopen the proceedings once he had exhausted his claims in state court. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and stayed the case. Upon review of Petitioner's application for a COA, his opening brief, the magistrate's report and the district court's orders, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights to warrant granting him the writ. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal. View "Branch v. Howard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Gary Belden was sentenced in Wyoming state court to life imprisonment after being convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree sexual assault. He was transferred to an out-of-state prison in 2003, shortly after his conviction was affirmed by the Wyoming state supreme court. In 2011, Plaintiff sued prison officials alleging that the Wyoming Department of Corrections had violated his constitutional right to access the courts while he was incarcerated outside Wyoming. The Department successfully moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. The Tenth Circuit found that the Constitution "does not guarantee access to the courts to file frivolous claims." The Court noticed that during the time Plaintiff was incarcerated, he engaged in "a good deal" of litigation. Hence, the Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's access-to-court claim because he failed to show that he had a nonfrivolous claim that he was hindered in pursuing while incarcerated outside Wyoming. View "Belden v. Lampert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Conger appealed the Commissioner's denial of his application for supplemental social security income benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in 2005 alleging he was unable to work because of degenerative disk disease, spondylosis, arthritis, depression, and problems sleeping. His application was denied at the administrative level after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform simple and routine medium exertional work that required no more than occasional stooping and no contact with the public. After the Appeals Council denied his request for review, Plaintiff filed his complaint in the district court. The district court adopted the report and affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the ALJ's RFC finding and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the district court and Commissioner's rulings. View "Conger v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Dumas appealed the dismissal of his workplace discrimination suit against Proctor and Gamble (P&G). Plaintiff was employed as a contractor assigned to work at P&G's Kansas City manufacturing plant in 2005. Between 2005 and 2007, Plaintiff alleged he was subjected to discrimination in the workplace including the use of racial epithets, misuse of company disciplinary proceedings, and an incident in which a chair was pulled away as Dumas was attempting to sit on it. Dumas resigned in November of 2007. In 2011, he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination. The EEOC closed the claim as untimely. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in district court against P&G, and P&G moved to dismiss, alleging Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff responded that he was given bad advice by an unnamed EEOC agent. The district court concluded that Dumas failed to meet the narrow requirements for equitable tolling and dismissed the claim. Finding that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of establishing that an EEOC agent actually misled him, and insufficiently present his state law claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgement in dismissing Plaintiff's case. View "Dumas v. Proctor & Gamble" on Justia Law

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant Jimmy Ray O'Kelly sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. Dozens of partygoers were gathered at a New Mexico apartment complex when a man who met the description of Petitioner held a gun to a man's head, and threatened onlookers not to get involved. Shots were fired; one person was killed, and three others, including Petitioner, were wounded. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in New Mexico state court, and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied certiorari. In his petition before the district court, Petitioner raised eight grounds for relief, which was summarily dismissed with prejudice. After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner's COA application, the magistrate judge's opinion and the state-court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed for substantially the same reasons endorsed and adopted by the district court that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal. View "O'Kelley v. Heredia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce Field filed a wrongful termination action against his former employer the Board of Water Commissioners for the City and County of Denver (Denver Water), alleging three "1983" retaliation claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Denver water and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff was a project manager. He came to suspect misconduct between senior engineers and several contractors at three projects he was working on. Plaintiff expressed his concerns to his superiors, who responded that the matters were "taken care of." Denver Water assured Mr. Field they were retaining a national auditing firm to conduct an external review, but he alleged the firm was unqualified and biased. Plaintiff's supervisor issued a recommendation for corrective action against Plaintiff, noting that an internal auditor had "seen nothing that could not be corrected" at the end of the projects. Further, the supervisor reported that Plaintiff was insubordinate and "willing to go to extreme lengths to prove his unreasonable belief that the contractors and Denver Water management are corrupt." The supervisor recommended that Plaintiff be terminated. Finding that the district court "accurately and thoroughly examined Mr. Field's claims and concluded they were all meritless," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's case. View "Field v. Board of Water Commissioner" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jeffery Doles appealed his conviction for sentencing after a jury convicted him of unlawfully selling drug paraphernalia. Defendant was given a voluntary surrender date, but fled to Mexico instead of reporting to the Bureau of Prisons. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that the district court improperly excluded evidence that would have been material to an affirmative defense of medical necessity for failing to report. The medical issues Defendant claimed arose out of a 1996 car accident in which he was seriously injured. As a result, he was paralyzed from the chest down and takes numerous medications for pain and discomfort. Defendant claims the excluded evidence would have supported a necessity defense: (1) evidence about his physical condition, (2) evidence about his state of mind concerning his physical condition, (3) and evidence about his fears of receiving inadequate care in prison. Finding that Defendant did not and could not have proffered sufficient evidence to establish any of his claims of error, and that Defendant's belief that he had been illegally convicted did not excuse him from reporting to serve his sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Doles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Kathryn Johns appealed the district court’s denial of her motion for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) which followed the court's remand to the Commissioner of her claims for Social Security disability benefits. In denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that her diagnosed mental impairments were not severe apart from alcohol abuse. Plaintiff argued before the district court that the ALJ had failed to apply the correct analysis in assessing her alcoholism. Specifically, the ALJ did not first find that she was disabled, and only then could the ALJ determine whether she would still be disabled if she stopped using alcohol. The government admitted that the ALJ did not follow the specified procedure, but argued that the error was harmless because the dispositive question was the same. Ultimately the district court remanded the case back to the Commissioner. Plaintiff then moved for fees under the EAJA. The government responded by arguing that a fee award was inappropriate because it believed the error by the ALJ was harmless. The district court denied Plaintiff's motion for fees. Finding that the district court believed that application of harmless error in this case was a close call, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under those circumstances, the district court did not "cross the bounds of the rationally available choices available to it when it concluded that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of fees. View "Johns v. Astrue" on Justia Law

In 2010, Defendant-Appellant Franklin Carel, Jr. was convicted of knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On appeal,he contended that SORNA's sex offender registration provision, 42 U.S.C. 16913, is unconstitutional. Upon careful consideration of Defendant's appellate brief before the Tenth Circuit, the Court held that as applied to Defendant as a federal sex offender on supervised release, section 16913 is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. View "United States v. Carel, Jr." on Justia Law