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

Pro se prisoner Appellant James McKeighan appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees seven Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) employees and former Deputy U.S. Marshal Mike Shute. Appellant claimed that while he was a pretrial detainee at the CCA facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, he was (1) "denied outside recreation while housed in an overcrowded cell," in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (2) "confined in segregation as punishment for attempting to defend his criminal case," in violation of the First Amendment. In granting defendants' motions for summary judgment, the district court found that there was no material issue of fact regarding Appellant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that his claims must be dismissed as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court ruled that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts to state a violation of his constitutional rights. After careful review of Appellant's brief, the record on appeal, and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the court's "thorough" memorandum and order.

This case concerned the appeal of two district court orders. The first order granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants County of Bernalillo and several county officials against Plaintiffs Doris Lujan and her minor daughters, R.L. and D.L., on their claims for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The second order is one that referred a memorandum and order concerning Plaintiffs’ lawyer, Dennis Montoya, to the Chief Judge of the New Mexico Federal District Court and to the Chief Counsel of the Disciplinary Board for the State Bar of New Mexico. The issues raised by Plaintiff on appeal concerned the searches of Doris Lujan and her daughters and the detention of the minors in an adult holding cell pending their release to a responsible party. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including qualified immunity. Plaintiffs never addressed qualified immunity in their appeal. "Even if [the Tenth Circuit Court] were inclined to overlook this failure, the result would be the same, because just as in the district court, Plaintiffs have failed to explain how the alleged misconduct violated their constitutional rights, and more to the point, that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident." The Court did not consider Mr. Montoya's memorandum referred to the chief judge and disciplinary counsel because he "apparently abandoned the appeal." The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

In a prior appeal in this case, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Union Pacific Railroad Company. The Court remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss Union Pacific’s breach-of-contract claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On remand, Union Pacific filed a motion seeking transfer of the claim to the Court of Federal Claims. The district court denied the motion and this appeal followed. On remand, the Tenth Circuit's mandate did not give the district court any discretion, but instead gave a specific instruction to dismiss. "Instead of asking the district court to transfer the case after remand, Union Pacific should have filed a timely motion [with the Tenth Circuit] to recall the mandate." The Court held that Union Pacific's request in its reply brief was not the proper way to seek to recall the mandate. The Court concluded that Union Pacific failed to show good cause of its delay in seeking such relief, and accordingly, the Court denied Union Pacific's request. "The district court acted in accordance with our mandate in denying Union Pacific's transfer motion." The Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Defendant-Appellant Byckley Charles Leutwiler was convicted by a jury of two counts of Possession of a Machine Gun, and one count of Possession of a Firearm with an Obliterated Serial Number. Defendant was sentenced to thirty-eight months imprisonment and appealed his sentence to the Tenth Circuit. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred when it admitted other crimes evidence without prior notice and findings contrary to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because Defendant did not preserve this issue by objecting at trial to the admission of the evidence, the Tenth Circuit's review was for plain error. Finding none in its review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

Defendant-Appellant Uriel Santos-Santos appealed his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. He contended that the district court erred in applying a 16-level offense adjustment pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines resulting in a 57-month sentence. Defendant, a Mexican citizen, was convicted in California of (1) inflicting corporal injury on a spouse with a specified prior conviction within seven years and (2) assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. In 2007 he was deported to Mexico, but in January 2010 immigration officials discovered him in Arapahoe County Jail in Centennial, Colorado. That April, Defendant pled guilty to the federal offense. The Presentence Report, on the basis of Defendant's California assault conviction, reflected an offense adjustment of 16 offense levels for defendants who have unlawfully reentered after a conviction for a "crime of violence." This produced an advisory Guideline range of 57-71 months' imprisonment. Defendant unsuccessfully objected to the PSR. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the California convictions were "crimes of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the district court did not err in enhancing Defendant's sentence based on those convictions, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

This appeal arose from a suit filed by the United States that asked the district court to reduce certain of Defendant-Appellant Jack Wilson’s tax liabilities to judgment, to set aside a fraudulent transfer of real property from Wilson to Defendant Joey Lee Dobbs-Wilson, and to enforce the government’s new liens, as well as one preexisting tax lien, against the real property by ordering a sale. Wilson appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States. Wilson argued in his response to the government’s motion for summary judgment and in his cross-motion for summary judgment that Ms. Dobbs-Wilson was not his nominee when he transferred the property to her in 1998 and, as a result, a 1997 lien became invalid when the government mistakenly released it in 2003, after he no longer owned the property. Assuming the validity of Wilson's argument, and after supplemental briefing on the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Wilson failed to demonstrate any injury to him that the Court could redress. Having determined that the Court lacked jurisdiction over his appeal, the case was dismissed.

Petitioner Charles Raymond Wheeler appealed a Tax Court decision finding him liable for (1) income-tax deficiencies for the years 2002, 2004, and 2005; (2) additions to tax for those years; and (3) a $25,000 sanction. Petitioner did not claim to have filed returns for the years in question, or to have paid taxes owing for those years, yet he urged the Tenth Circuit to overturn the Tax Court’s decision and determine that he had no liability. He contended on appeal that the Commissioner did not prove that he had failed to file returns, did not carry the burden of production on the additions to tax, and did not create a valid substitute return to support the taxes and additions imposed. In addition, he claimed that the Tax Court judge was biased against him. The Commissioner filed a motion for sanctions against Petitioner for filing a frivolous appeal maintained primarily for delay. Upon review of Petitioner's arguments, the Tenth Circuit found all without merit and affirmed the Tax Court's decisions and the imposition of sanctions.

Defendant Shaun Salazar pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to 115 months imprisonment. He appealed his sentence, claiming the district court erred in calculating his offense level and in imposing an unreasonable sentence. In affirming the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant had "not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. Contrary to his argument, his crime was not 'fairly mitigated'; rather, his extensive criminal history, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and decision to abscond fairly demanded a condign sentence. Even if the guidelines might occasionally produce an unreasonable sentence in a case presenting substantial mitigating factors, this is not such a case. There was no abuse of discretion."

Defendant Dwayne Hudson petitioned the Tenth Circuit to challenge a district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. In the complaint, Defendant alleged his civil rights were violated stemming from the revocation of his parole for failing to register as a sex offender. The district court concluded Defendant's complaint was legally frivolous and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. Upon review of the trial record and the brief Defendant presented on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant did not present "reasoned, non-frivolous arguments" in support of the issues he raised on appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as frivolous and denied his motion to proceed on appeal and reminded him of his obligation to pay the filing and docket fees in full to the clerk of the district court.

Plaintiffs, a group of inmates in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), sued Defendant Roger Werholtz, Secretary of KDOC (the Secretary), under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. They challenged two policies in the KDOC's Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP), which requires money obtained by the inmate to be saved for use upon release from prison. "Plaintiffs' imprecise amended complaint appeared to contend" that these policies: (1) violated their private-property rights without due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) were unconstitutionally vague; (3) violated the federal and Kansas constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) imposed punishment in violation of the "principles of ex post facto." Contending that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim and had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to grant summary judgment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the compulsory-savings plans did not violate Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs appealed. Upon careful consideration of the Plaintiffs' appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that their argument failed on multiple levels to allege the violation of any constitutional right or a basis on which the Court could grant any relief. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal.