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

Mr. Jorge Martinez was fatally shot by Officer Cheyenne Lee while being served with an emergency protective order. The incident began when Officer Lee arrived at Mr. Martinez's home, and a family member informed him that Mr. Martinez was asleep. Upon being awakened, Mr. Martinez told Officer Lee to leave. Officer Lee attempted to arrest Mr. Martinez, managing to handcuff one hand before a struggle ensued, ending with Officer Lee shooting Mr. Martinez. The administratrix of Mr. Martinez's estate filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment due to unlawful arrest and excessive force.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma initially granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Lee. However, upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision, stating that the district court had failed to consider the plaintiff's version of events, which could constitute an unlawful arrest and excessive force. The case was remanded to the district court to determine if these findings would clearly establish a constitutional violation. The district court concluded that they would and denied summary judgment to Officer Lee, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Officer Lee lacked qualified immunity on the claims of unlawful arrest and excessive force. The court determined that no reasonable officer could have perceived probable cause for the arrest based on the plaintiff's version of events, which included no threats or violent actions by Mr. Martinez. Additionally, the court found that the use of deadly force was clearly established as unconstitutional in situations where the suspect posed no immediate threat. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment for Officer Lee. View "Ibarra v. Lee" on Justia Law

In September 2022, the defendant used a short-term rental home in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to distribute fentanyl pills. The rental was booked by an unindicted female co-conspirator through Airbnb.com. The property manager, Mallory Massey, visited the rental on September 9 and found the master-bedroom door locked. The defendant opened the door and explained that he had been using the back door. On September 15, police observed the defendant selling fentanyl pills at the rental. A search warrant executed on September 19 led to the discovery of fentanyl, marijuana, scales, firearms, ammunition, cash, and personal belongings, resulting in the defendant's arrest.The defendant was indicted by a grand jury on charges of possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He was convicted on all counts following a jury trial. The presentence investigation report recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for drug distribution. The defendant objected, arguing there was no evidence he maintained the house. The district court applied the enhancement, finding that the defendant solely occupied the residence and used it primarily for drug distribution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the enhancement was appropriate, as the defendant exercised control over the rental, stored drugs and personal belongings there, and used it for drug distribution. The court affirmed the district court's application of the enhancement and the defendant's sentence of 248 months' imprisonment. View "United States v. Day" on Justia Law

PorterCare Adventist Health Systems had inadequate surgical-sterilization procedures for about two years, leading to over $40 million in liability from thousands of patients' claims. PorterCare sought coverage from AdHealth, its excess-liability insurer, for the full $40 million policy limit, arguing that the claims arose from one medical incident. AdHealth refused coverage, asserting that a medical incident covers injuries to a single person, not multiple people, and filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. PorterCare counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to AdHealth, agreeing with its interpretation that a medical incident is limited to the acts or omissions causing injury to one person. The court found that AdHealth owed coverage only for the claims of a single patient that trigger the excess policy’s liability threshold, not for multiple patients' claims grouped together.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the policy’s definition of “medical incident” unambiguously applies to the injuries of a single person. Therefore, AdHealth is liable only for individual claims exceeding PorterCare’s $2 million self-insurance retention, not for the aggregated claims of multiple patients. View "Adhealth, Limited v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems" on Justia Law

Alexander William Santiago was convicted of production and possession of child pornography and sentenced to 240 months and 120 months imprisonment, respectively, to run consecutively. Santiago appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his iPhone. The iPhone was initially searched under a state search warrant, which Santiago claimed was impermissibly broad, and later under a federal search warrant that relied on the results of the state search.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Santiago's motion to suppress, finding that the state search warrant failed the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement but applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The court did not address whether there was probable cause for the federal search warrant absent the state search results. Santiago was subsequently found guilty by a jury and sentenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Santiago that the state search warrant was overbroad and violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. The court held that the good faith exception did not apply because no reasonable officer could rely on such a warrant. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the state search should be suppressed.The court also examined the federal search warrant, determining that without the tainted evidence from the state search, the affidavit did not establish probable cause to search Santiago’s iPhone for child pornography. Therefore, the evidence from the federal search was also suppressed.The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Santiago’s motion to suppress, vacated his conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Kenya Watkins, a Black woman, was employed by Genesh, Inc., d/b/a Burger King, from August 2014 to August 2015. She alleged that her manager verbally, physically, and sexually harassed her, including forcing her into a freezer, groping her, simulating sex with her, and stating she would not be promoted unless she had sex with him. Watkins filed an employment discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the EEOC in early 2016. In December 2018, she alleged that Genesh admonished her then-employer, Church’s Chicken, for hiring her, leading to a second EEOC charge in 2019.In August 2019, Watkins sued Genesh in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination. The district court dismissed her complaint, finding her allegations did not plausibly support racial harassment. The court noted that Watkins had pending EEOC charges and could file her Title VII claims once the EEOC proceedings concluded. In July 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2019 charge, which Watkins did not pursue. In April 2022, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2016 charge, leading Watkins to file a second lawsuit in July 2022, raising claims under Title VII and other statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Watkins’s 2022 complaint as untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on claim preclusion grounds. The court held that Watkins’s Title VII claims were precluded by the final judgment in her 2019 lawsuit, as both suits arose from the same employment relationship. The court reaffirmed that the absence of a right-to-sue letter did not deprive Watkins of a full and fair opportunity to litigate her Title VII claims in the initial suit. View "Watkins v. Genesh" on Justia Law

Clifton White, the plaintiff, claimed that officials from the New Mexico Corrections Department unlawfully detained him beyond his release date. White argued that his sentence for violating probation was wrongfully entered and that he informed the prison officials of this error. Despite acknowledging the potential mistake, the officials continued to detain him based on a facially valid court order.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico reviewed the case and denied the prison officials' motion to dismiss, which was based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded that it was clearly established law that prison officials violate constitutional rights when they continue to imprison individuals without a lawful basis or are deliberately indifferent to such a prospect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that no controlling Tenth Circuit law clearly established that prison officials act unlawfully when they rely on a facially valid judicial sentencing order, even if they believe the order was made in error. The court emphasized that prison officials are not required to ignore or correct a judicial sentencing order if they suspect it is flawed. The proper recourse for a defendant who disagrees with a judicial order is to appeal through the state or federal judicial process. Thus, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the law was not clearly established that the prison officials' conduct in this case was unconstitutional. View "White v. Lucero" on Justia Law

The case involves the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Colorado's revised implementation plan for ambient air quality standards. Colorado revised its plan in 2019, changing the wording of a permit requirement for new emission sources and adding language to the definition of a key threshold for evaluating compliance. The Center argued that the revisions would prevent regulators from blocking construction of new sources that generate excessive emissions and allow regulators to disregard emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion.The EPA approved Colorado's revisions, leading the Center to file a petition for review. The State of Colorado intervened to defend the revisions. The Center contended that the revised permit requirement and the new definition of "commencement of operation" would undermine air quality standards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the Center's first challenge, concluding that the Center had not shown an effect from the revised wording in the permit requirement. However, the court agreed with the Center on the second challenge, finding that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the potential emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion. The court held that the EPA did not independently assess whether the revised definition created a substantive change and remanded the case to the EPA for further explanation without vacating the EPA's prior approval of the revised definition. The court denied the petition for review regarding the revised permit requirement but granted it concerning the revised definition of "commencement of operation." View "Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA" on Justia Law

Larry Lawson, former CEO of Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., retired and entered into a Retirement Agreement with Spirit, which allowed him to continue vesting in long-term incentive stock awards as if he were an active employee. This agreement was conditioned on his compliance with a non-competition covenant from his original Employment Agreement. Lawson later engaged with a hedge fund, Elliott Management, which was involved in a proxy contest with Arconic, a competitor of Spirit. Spirit deemed this a violation of the non-competition covenant and ceased payments and stock vesting under the Retirement Agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas held a bench trial and found that Lawson had not violated the non-competition covenant, ruling in his favor. Spirit appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Lawson had breached the covenant and remanded the case to determine the enforceability of the covenant under Kansas law.On remand, the district court found the non-competition covenant enforceable without applying the reasonableness test from Weber v. Tillman, concluding that the covenant was a condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits, not a traditional non-compete. The court severed the injunctive enforcement mechanism from the covenant, leaving only the condition precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, predicting that the Kansas Supreme Court would not apply the Weber reasonableness test to a non-competition condition precedent to the receipt of future benefits. The court also denied Lawson's motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court, finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue. View "Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems" on Justia Law

Gerald Silver filed a putative class action against the City of Albuquerque, alleging that the City violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making pre-recorded phone calls to invite residents to virtual town hall meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Silver claimed he received at least seven such calls on his cell phone. The City argued that it was not subject to the TCPA as it was not a "person" under the statute and that the calls fell under the TCPA’s emergency purposes exception.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the City’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the calls fell within the emergency purposes exception of the TCPA. The court did not address whether the City was a "person" under the TCPA. Silver appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that even assuming the TCPA applies to local governments, Silver’s complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that the calls were made by a local government official, were informational, and were made necessary by the COVID-19 pandemic to inform residents about virtual town hall meetings, which were a mitigation measure in response to the pandemic. Therefore, the calls fell within the TCPA’s emergency purposes exception. The court did not need to determine whether local governments qualify as persons under the TCPA. View "Silver v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

C.L., a twelve-year-old student, was invited by her teacher, Jenna Riep, to an after-school art club meeting, which turned out to be a Gender and Sexualities Alliance (GSA) meeting. During the meeting, a guest speaker, Kimberly Chambers, discussed gender identity and suggested that students uncomfortable with their bodies might be transgender. Chambers also warned students that it might not be safe to tell their parents about the meeting and provided her personal contact information for further communication. C.L. announced herself as transgender at the meeting and later informed her parents, who subsequently disenrolled her from the school. H.J., another student, had similar experiences and also faced emotional distress, leading her parents to disenroll her from the school.The parents of C.L. and H.J. sued the Poudre School District and its Board of Education, alleging a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment parental substantive-due-process rights. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The parents then moved to amend their complaint, focusing solely on a claim against the school district for monetary damages. The district court denied the motion to amend, concluding that the parents had failed to plausibly allege municipal liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the parents did not plausibly allege that the school district's official policy was the moving force behind their alleged injuries. The court found that the parents failed to establish a direct causal link between the district's policies and the constitutional injury they claimed. View "Lee v. Poudre School District R-1" on Justia Law