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

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Julian Russell petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealablity (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for the writ of habeas corpus. In 2009, Russell was convicted of attempted aggravated indecent solicitation of a child and sentenced to twenty-four months’ probation with an underlying sentence of twenty-four months’ incarceration. Petitioner was also sentenced to lifetime postrelease supervision. The district court dismissed Petitioner's petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Finding that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights, the Tenth Circuit concluded he was not entitled to a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Appellant Julian Russell petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealablity (COA) to challenge a district court's denial of his application for the writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed an application for habeas relief to challenge his pretrial detention at the Marion County Jail in Kansas. The district court dismissed his application, concluding abstention was appropriate based on the doctrine enunciated in "Younger v. Harris," (401 U.S. 37 (1971)). The court also concluded that Appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies. Upon review of Appellant's COA application, appellate brief, and district court record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Appellant was not entitled to a COA. The Court denied his request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant Eugene S. appealed a district court's denial of his motion to strike and its entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (Horizon BCBSNJ). Plaintiff sought coverage for his son A.S.'s residential treatment costs from his employer's ERISA benefits insurer. Horizon's delegated plan administrator originally denied the claim. Having exhausted his administrative appeals, Plaintiff filed suit in district court challenging the denial of benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but Horizon also filed a declaration that included the terms of Horizon's delegation of authority to the plan administrator to administer mental health claims in a Vendor Services Agreement. Plaintiff moved to strike that declaration as procedurally barred. The district court denied the motion and granted Horizon summary judgment, finding that neither Horizon nor its plan administrator acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying the contested claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found substantial evidence in the record that A.S. did not meet the criteria for residential treatment benefits under the plan, and as such, the plan administrator did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying Plaintiff's claim. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Plaintiffs Edward Klen, Diverse Construction, Stephen Klen and Holstein Self-Service Storage, LLC brought a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Loveland Colorado and various City employees alleging "a plethora" of constitutional violations involving: the defendants' alleged imposition of deliberate delays and unreasonable requirements for Plaintiffs' building permit; solicitation of illegal and extortionate fees for the permit; use of perjury in criminal ordinance violation proceedings; retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights; forgery of Plaintiffs' permit application to facilitate a wrongful prosecution; and trespassing by a building inspector. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Plaintiffs' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit could not agree with the district court's conclusion that there was no causal connection between an alleged affidavit used to support Plaintiffs' claim that they were being selectively prosecuted and the outcome of that prosecution. "It is not possible to determine on this record whether, absent the affidavit, the state municipal court would have dismissed the prosecution against Ed Klen, obviating the need for a no contest plea to avoid the possibility of a trial and even of jail time for the offenses. We therefore reverse summary judgment as to this claim." The court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Carolina Internet Ltd. appealed the entry of default judgment against it in favor of TW Telecom Holdings Inc. for more than three million dollars. During the pendency of this appeal, Carolina Internet filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Tenth Circuit had previously interpreted the automatic stay provisions in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code as not preventing a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (like Carolina Internet) from pursuing an appeal even f it was an appeal from a creditor's judgment against the debtor. Nine other circuit courts disagreed with the Tenth Circuit's interpretation, holding that a bankruptcy filing automatically stays all proceedings, even appellate proceedings where the debtor has filed an appeal from a judgment entered in a suit against the debtor. The Court overruled its prior interpretation of the automatic stay provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, which prevented it from proceeding with Carolina Internet's appeal of the default judgment against it. This case was stayed pending bankruptcy court proceedings.

Plaintiff John Ensey was employed by both Defendant Ozzie’s Pipeline Padder, Inc. (Ozzie’s) and Rockford Corporation when he was severely injured. He sued Ozzie’s but was denied relief on the ground that Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusive-remedy provision of the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff appealed, contending that Ozzie’s could not invoke the exclusivity provision because it failed to show that it contributed to paying for the workers’ compensation policy obtained by co-employer Rockford. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under New Mexico law Ozzie’s was protected by the exclusivity provision because its contract with Rockford required Rockford to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to overcome the inference that Ozzie’s therefore contributed to paying the insurance premium. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment that denied him relief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Richardson appealed a district court's order that affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Childhood Disability Benefits. Plaintiff filed two applications: one for Childhood Disability Benefits as a Disabled Adult Child and another for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Plaintiff was diagnosed with Asperger's Disorder; the examining physician opined that Plaintiff had a "fairly severe disability" such that he probably would not be able to find a job or remain employed. Both of Plaintiff's applications were initially denied. The ALJ found no evidence that Plaintiff was under a disability beginning before his twenty-second birthday, and that his impairment did not prevent him from performing unskilled work. The Commissioner affirmed the ALJ. After the Appeals Council denied review, Plaintiff filed an action in district court seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s decision denying his claim. The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, and Plaintiff filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the Commissioner initially asserted that the ALJ’s findings were largely consistent with the examining physician's findings. However, upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the ALJ made no such findings: the ALJ did not mention the physician's opinion "much less evaluate whether it was supported by the record." The Court remanded the case back to the ALJ to perform a proper evaluation of the physician's opinion.

Appellant Jason Edgar Kort pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. He appealed his 135-month sentence on grounds the district court erred in denying both his request for an additional two-level downward departure based on his substantial assistance to the government and his motion for a variance based on the same assistance to the government and an alleged sentencing disparity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court considered all of Appellant's contentions concerning his government assistance and sufficiently explained Appellant's sentence, including why it declined to provide a variance for such assistance. Appellant did not provide a persuasive argument for the purpose of rebutting the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on government assistance grounds nor otherwise shown his 135-month sentence, which was at the low end of the Guidelines range, was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment and Appellant's sentence.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Melvin Holly petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court's denial in part and dismissal in part of his "Motion for Severance, 'Conflict of Interest,' Change of Venue, Pursuant to Rule 18 U.S.C. 3234 Fed. R. Crim. P." Petitioner was a former sheriff and had been convicted on numerous counts "related to the sexual abuse of inmates, employees, and an employee's daughter at the Latimer County jail." He pursued a direct appeal, a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and various other forms of relief. Petitioner's motion asserted that: (1) because the Tenth Circuit had reversed some of his convictions in his direct appeal, those counts should be severed from the remaining counts of conviction; (2) some of the jurors knew him, requiring a change of venue; (3) his defense counsel had a conflict of interest because counsel was representing another defendant (whom Petitioner had arrested and jailed at the Latimer County jail) in a separate proceeding; (4) the then-current United States Attorney had a conflict of interest because he and Petitioner were longtime friends; and (5) in light of these issues, Petitioner was deprived of his liberty without due process. In addition to severance and a change of venue, Petitioner requested a new trial or a reversal of his convictions. Because his motion attempted to bring unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 claims, the Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal.

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Nagim appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, INc. and Transunion, LLC. In 2005, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, which discharged some of his credit accounts. Almost four years later, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, three credit reporting agencies (CRAs), alleging Defendants had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including inaccurate information on Plaintiff’s credit report and improperly depressing his credit scores. This allegedly inaccurate information included an account that was discharged in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and references to the bankruptcy in general. All three defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a magistrate judge held that summary judgment was proper. After a thorough review of the record, the Tenth Circuit concluded Plaintiff "has provided absolutely no competent summary judgment evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment."