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

Pro se prisoner Petitioner-Appellant David Hampton sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for habeas relief. In 2007, Petitioner was convicted by an Oklahoma jury on six counts pertaining to cocaine trafficking, possession and firearms charges. On the jury's recommendation, the state trial court ultimately sentenced Petitioner to multiple year sentences all to run concurrently. Petitioner was unsuccessful in his state appeals. He turned to the Tenth Circuit for judicial review. After careful review of the record on appeal, including the magistrate judge's initial and supplemental reports, and the district court's orders adopting those reports, the Tenth Circuit was "unable to conclude that reasonable jurists would find any of the district court's determinations debatable or wrong." Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiff Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC, acquired title to three pieces of real property in Utah from three defaulting borrowers. Plaintiff then filed three suits in diversity against various Defendants which held interests in the property, seeking to prevent foreclosure. Plaintiff argued Defendants had no authority to foreclose because the notes in each case had been securitized and sold on the open market. Because the security followed the debt, Plaintiff argued once Defendants sold the security they could not foreclose absent authorization from every investor who had purchased an interest in the securitized note. Defendants in all three cases filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and the district court granted those motions. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's diversity jurisdiction claims had no legal basis under Utah law, and as such, the district court properly dismissed all three complaints.

Defendant-Appellant Kevin Murphy was a registered sex offender in Utah, after having been convicted of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Several times since his conviction, he has signed forms acknowledging his duty to notify the authorities upon any change of residence. In this appeal, the issue facing the Tenth Circuit was whether a sex offender violates the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) if he abandons his residence and moves to a foreign country without notifying the authorities of his home state. The Court concluded he does. For SORNA purposes, a sex offender continues to reside in a state after a change in residence or employment, both of which trigger reporting obligations, even if the offender eventually leaves the state. Therefore, even if an offender abandons his current residence and job with the intention of moving out of the country, he must update his registration to reflect his new status.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff Stephen Burnett appealed a district court’s order dismissing his civil-rights complaint and denying his motion to add a defendant. Plaitiff's case arose from a six-week lockdown at the Cimmaron facility in which Plaitiff was incarcerated. "The linchpin of [Plaintiff's] suit was not whether prison officials had the authority to impose a lockdown, but instead whether the restrictions imposed during the lockdown so altered the conditions of his confinement as to violate his constitutional rights." The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation which concluded that Plaintiff's claims against Warden Joseph Taylor were moot and should have been dismissed without prejudice. As to the director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Justin Jones, the magistrate found that even if the claims against him were not moot, those claims should have been dismissed with prejudice because the complaint failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted and would have been futile to amend. The magistrate also denied Plaintiff's motion to add Warden Robert Ezell as a defendant. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, effectively ending Plaintiff's case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit partly affirmed, partly reversed the district court (and magistrate judge's) decision. Because the Court's conclusion that the claims against Mr. Jones were moot but for different reasons than the district court, it reversed the decision for dismissal without prejudice. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Brule appealed a district court's dismissal of his claims for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and negligence. Plaitiff acted as a insurance broker for Henry Productions, Inc.'s health, dental, vision, and related insurance policies, which were all issued by Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico (“CBS). Plaintiff received brokerage commissions, paid by Henry Productions, for his sales of BCBS policies. In 2008, Plaintiff and BCBS employee Albert Rhodes met with employees of Henry Productions to discuss the company’s annual health insurance renewal. The renewal documents prepared by Rhodes listed Plaintiff's commission rate at the top of every page, which BCBS had never done before. As a result, Plaintiff lost his longstanding account with Henry Productions. In 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against BCBS in state court. BCBS removed the case to federal court then moved to dismiss. The district court granted BCBS's motion. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaitiff argued that the district court erred in dismissing his claims and should have, at the least, granted him leave to amend. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that even if he were allowed to amend,Plaintiff would have been unable to establish a legal duty owed to him by BCBS under New Mexico law. Because granting him leave to amend would be futile, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

Pro se prisoner Defendant-Appellant Michael McCalister appealed a district court's denial of his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In September 1999, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. In 2002, he filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus which the district court denied. In 2011, Defendant filed a motion titled: "Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Petitioner's Motion for Equitable Relief from Judgment of the District Court Denying Habeas Petition and Request to Reopen [Section] 2255 Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) & (d)(1) of the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. and the Supreme Court Rule Announced in 'Gonzales v. Crosby.'" This too was denied, the district court recharacterizing Defendant's "motion" as a second or unauthorized successive petition for post conviction relief. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's recharacterization, denied his appeal and dismissed Defendant's appeal.

Petitioner Dewey MacKay, M.D. petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review a decision of the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that revoked his registration to dispense controlled substances and denied all pending requests for renewal of modification. This case concerned Petitioner's prescribing behavior from 2005 to 2009 when his practice focused primarily on chronic pain management. The DEA began investigating Petitioner after receiving information from local authorities that he was issuing unlawful prescriptions for controlled substances. the Deputy Administrator of the DEA issued an order to show cause why it should not revoke Petitioner's registration, alleging that Petitioner "issued numerous purported prescriptions for controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose outside the usual course of professional practice." The Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review: "Petitioner never admitted any fault or taken responsibility for his misconduct. Nor [could] he point to any evidence that he reformed his habits. Instead, he continued to illegitimately dispense controlled substances even when he knew the DEA was investigating him. The Deputy Administrator’s revocation of [Petitioner's] registration is consistent with the DEA’s policy and practice of revoking registration under such circumstances."

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Jordan brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Plaintiff was convicted of multiple armed robberies in 1994 and the stabbing death of a fellow inmate in 1999. When he filed this action, he was imprisoned at an Administrative Maximum Facility, known as the ADX or the Supermax. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants improperly denied several separate requests for information he made pursuant to FOIA or the Privacy Act. First, Plaintiff asked for the names and titles of all staff at the Supermax, denied on the basis that the request could "reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." Second, Plaintiff asked for all documents pertaining to his psychological or psychiatric profile maintained by the prison. Plaintiff was given redacted copies of the information because some of the information in those files would not otherwise be available by law to anyone other than "an agency in litigation with the agency." In his third request, Plaintiff asked for copies of all mail that was sent to or from him and copied to staff at the Supermax. This request was denied as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose" law enforcement or prosecutorial strategy that otherwise would not be subject to disclosure. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded that Plaintiff was entitled to the documents he requested through FOIA, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

On its second trip to the Tenth Circuit, this case arose from a dispute over payment for trial transcripts. After the City ordered and paid for original hearing transcripts prepared by Ms. Bean, Mr. Livingston asked the special master to direct the City to file copies with the clerk so the plaintiffs could access them without having to obtain copies from Ms. Bean at higher cost. When the special master refused, Mr. Livingston ordered copies of the transcripts directly from the City through New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act. After Ms. Bean complained to the district court, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay reasonable court reporter’s fees for any copies of transcripts, the district court also placed a lien on any future recovery by the plaintiffs to secure payment of the yet-to-be determined amount claimed by Ms. Bean. The case eventually settled, and a final judgment entered. After he failed to submit a motion for costs and fees, including any fees owed to Ms. Bean under the lien, the court found Mr. Livingston personally liable for Ms. Bean’s fees and held back a portion of the funds from his fee payment. Mr. Livingston appealed, arguing that Ms. Bean was not a party in the district court proceedings and had not asked to intervene. The Tenth Circuit concluded Ms. Bean did not have a proprietary interest in the contents of the transcripts, and reversed the decision releasing funds to her. Ms. Bean did not appeal to the state supreme court but instead filed a "special appearance to object to subject matter jurisdiction" to vacate the Tenth Circuit's prior order. In this second appeal before the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Bean's appeal was not preserved because she did not appeal to the state supreme court.

The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff Altheia Allen was disabled when her employer SouthCrest Hospital allegedly failed to accommodate her disability and terminated her employment. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded after review of the trial court record that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning her alleged disability, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SouthCrest.