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

Defendant Martin Galindo sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his motion for post conviction relief. The motion was denied and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on appeal. Defendant then sought relief from the denial of his motion by filing another motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The district court denied that motion too. Defendant pled guilty under a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Under the agreement, he waived his right to appeal or to bring a collateral attack on his conviction or sentence. Among other things, Defendant claimed that his defense counsel had been ineffective because he failed to file a direct appeal despite Defendant’s request, and this ineffectiveness entitled him to equitable tolling of the applicable statute of limitations. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that its earlier affirmation of the district court's dismissal of Defendant's motion for post conviction relief foreclosed any further proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Reyes Terrones-Lopez sought a certificate of appealability to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten counts alleging drug offenses. In compliance with an agreement with the government, he pled guilty to three counts charging distribution of cocaine. He waived his right to appeal or raise a collateral challenge to his guilty plea or sentence, except that he retained the right to challenge a sentence above the guidelines range. The district court entered judgment sentencing Petitioner on the three counts to 108 months in prison and dismissing the remaining counts. On appeal, Petitioner raised several claims for relief relating to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and the timeliness of his attempts to appeal the sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found nothing in the record to suggest he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his motions for reconsideration were indeed untimely. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Brandon Williams sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 2000, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder in Oklahoma state district court for which he was sentenced to life in prison. After his sentence, Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea. Petitioner then unsuccessfully petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus, denied for being untimely. Petitioner then turned to the Tenth Circuit for a COA to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner indeed filed his petitions outside the statute of limitations. As such, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiff Katherine Winters filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of an asserted right to the care and custody of her biological grandchildren. She named the State of Kansas, the state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, social workers and their supervisors and the state court judge who ruled on the "Child in Need of Care" (CINC) matter relating to all three children and the adoption proceeding of her grandson "C.W.," as well as a prosecutor, guardian ad litem and court-appointed special advocates. Plaintiff requested remedies including declaratory and injunctive relief voiding state-court placement and adoption orders, plus compensatory damages of $67 million and punitive damages. The district court dismissed the action, and Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in its determinations on subject-matter jurisdiction, defendants’ immunity, and the sufficiency of her complaint. Her fundamental argument was that the district court failed to give proper consideration to her claim of a constitutional right to the custody and care of C.W. Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the appellate briefs in the light of the governing law, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court’s analysis of Plaintiff's claims. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Pro se prisoner Defendant Darrell Washington sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. The court found Defendant's motion was essentially an unauthorized second or successive motion for such relief. Defendant was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment for drugs and weapons charges. Defendant contended that the district court erred by not considering his "legal-innocence" issues before it dismissed his motion. Defendant applied to the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court. "Because at its core Mr. Washington’s Rule 60(b) motion sought renewed consideration of claims already decided against him," the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly dismissed Defendant's motion for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case was the government's motion to enforce an appeal waiver contained in Defendant Shawndell Harrison's plea agreement. The defendant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court sentenced defendant to 188 months' imprisonment. This sentence was below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment and at the high end of the 180 to 188 month advisory guideline range determined by the district court. In his plea agreement, Defendant "knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] his right" to "[a]ppeal or collaterally challenge his guilty plea." Despite this waiver, Defendant filed a notice of appeal, seeking to assert a claim that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to enforce the appeal waiver because "of the need to know whether the district court correctly applied the ACCA in calculating the correct sentence." The Tenth Circuit found however that "defendant's miscarriage-of-justice argument is simply a claim of sentencing error, and this court has repeatedly held that alleged sentencing errors do not establish that enforcement of the appeal waiver would be unlawful under the miscarriage-of-justice inquiry." The Court granted the government's motion and dismissed this appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant Cherie Lopez-Fisher claimed Defendant-Appellee Abbott Laboratories fired her because of her gender, race, color and national origin. After receiving extensive briefing and hearing oral argument in this Title VII case, a magistrate judge entered an order granting summary judgment to Abbott Labs. In her appellate brief, Plaintiff insisted that because she successfully passed a "Performance Improvement Plan" conducted by Abbott Labs, her termination a week later raised an inference of discrimination. The magistrate judge found no evidence in the record that Plaintiff passed the Plan. Furthermore, the magistrate concluded that Plaintiff did not overcome her burden of proof that Abbott Labs' proffered reason for terminating Plaintiff (poor performance) was pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit adopted the magistrate judge's ruling in affirming dismissal of Plaintiff's case.

Petitioner Antonius Heijnen filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for either a writ of coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, seeking reversal and expungement of his federal-court convictions on several charges. In 2005, a jury found Petitioner guilty of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering charges. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed the convictions, but the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The court entered an order providing Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw his petition rather than having it recharacterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner did not withdraw it; the court recharacterized it as a 2255 motion and dismissed it as untimely. Petitioner appealed that dismissal but then voluntarily dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned the district court for either a writ of error coram nobis or a writ of audita querela, which the court denied. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Petitioner raised no argument why section 2255 did not provide an adequate or effective remedy. As such, the Court did not reach whether Petitioner's petition failed on the merits for lack of jurisdiction, "because the petition was properly dismissed in either event."

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Tyrone Farris sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his unauthorized second or successive motion for post-conviction relief. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. In 1986, Petitioner was convicted of first degree rape in state court in Oklahoma. In 1988, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. Petitioner also sought state post-conviction relief and that request was denied. Petitioner filed his first petition (also known as a 2254 petition) in 1991. In August 2011, Petitioner filed another 2254 petition. Because Petitioner failed to first obtain circuit-court authorization to file his second petition, the district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "[r]easonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct in its procedural ruling to dismiss [Petitioner's] unauthorized second" petition. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Calvin Barnett filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 charging certain corporate owners and employees of the Davis Correctional Facility (DCF), a private prison in Holdenville, Oklahoma, of violating his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleged that the prison knew of danger to two inmates, Defendant and his cell mate, "apparently as a result of conflict and likely violence between them." Plaintiff contended he told Defendants that he feared for his life, but they did nothing to protect the two from one another. This failure lead to the cell mate's death; Plaintiff was transferred from DCF and charged with first degree murder. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as time barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court was correct in dismissing the case: "[w]hen a complaint shows on its face that the applicable statute of limitations has expired, dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.