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

In 1998, Juston Shaw was convicted in Texas state court on a charge of sexual assault. Roughly ten years later, he moved to Oklahoma. When he did, his sexual-assault conviction triggered application of the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act. Shaw challenged his registration obligation, arguing the Oklahoma Act constituted unconstitutional retroactive punishment. The district court disagreed, holding that the statute's retroactive application didn't amount to punishment. On appeal, the issue presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether Shaw’s restrictions on reporting, residency, and loitering constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Responding in the negative, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Shaw v. Patton" on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a civil enforcement action against three Papa John’s entities for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying a reasonable workplace accommodation to the appellant. Scott Bonn, and firing him for requesting this accommodation. Bonn moved to intervene, but the district court determined that Bonn’s claim was subject to arbitration under an agreement that Bonn’s mother had executed. Based on this determination, the district court denied the motion to intervene and ordered Bonn to arbitrate his claim. Bonn appealed the denial of his motion to intervene and the order compelling arbitration. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the arbitration agreement did not curtail Bonn’s unconditional statutory right to intervene. Accordingly, the Court reversed the denial of the motion to intervene. Furthermore, the Court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the order compelling arbitration. "Although the district court ordered Mr. Bonn to arbitrate his claim, that order did not affect the EEOC’s claim against Papa John’s, which remains pending. Because that claim remains, the order compelling arbitration did not constitute a 'final decision,' which is necessary for appellate jurisdiction over an order compelling arbitration. Therefore, we dismiss this part of Mr. Bonn’s appeal." View "EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC" on Justia Law

J.S. is the mother of M.S., a child covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. was a residential student at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (“USDB”). Believing USDB was not complying with IDEA’s procedural requirements and was not providing M.S. with free appropriate public education (FAPE), J.S. sought a due process hearing. Unsatisfied with the relief she obtained in that hearing, J.S. filed a civil action in federal court, and appealed the district court decision granting her additional limited relief. She asserts the district court erred when it: (1) delegated its authority to resolve the propriety of M.S.’s residential placement to members of the team tasked with developing M.S.’s individualized education program (“IEP”); and (2) granted her only a partial award of attorneys’ fees. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court delegated the issue of M.S.’s residential placement to her IEP team and that such delegation "[was] at odds with" 20 U.S.C. 1415. The Court remanded this case to the district court to resolve the issue of M.S.’s residential placement and reconsideration of the attorney fee award. View "M.S. v. Utah School for the Deaf" on Justia Law

Brian Von Behren was serving a three-year term of supervised release stemming from a 2005 conviction for distribution of child pornography. One of the conditions of his release was modified to require that he successfully complete a sex offender treatment program, including a sexual history polygraph requiring him to answer questions regarding whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged. Von Behren contended that the polygraph condition violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court disagreed and held that the polygraph exam questions did not pose a danger of incrimination in the constitutional sense. Von Behren refused to answer the sexual history questions, thereby requiring the treatment provider to expel him from the program and subjecting him to potential revocation of his supervised release for violating the condition of supervision. The Tenth Circuit reversed on the Fifth Amendment issue. View "United States v. Von Behren" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of a conflict between the business models of Sprint Nextel Corporation and The Middle Man, Inc. Middle Man bought mobile telephones, including Sprint’s, and tries to resell them at a profit. Sprint brought a breach of contract lawsuit against Middle Man, and Middle Man counterclaimed seeking a declaration that its business model did not violate the contract that accompanied the purchase of Sprint telephones. The district court held as a matter of law that the contract unambiguously prohibited Middle Man from selling new mobile telephones purchased from Sprint regardless of whether they were active on Sprint’s network. In light of this holding, the district court: (1) granted judgment on the pleadings to Sprint on Middle Man’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment; and (2) granted summary judgment to Sprint on its breach of contract claim, awarding Sprint nominal damages of $1. Middle Man appealed, contending that the entry of judgment on Sprint’s claim and Middle Man’s counterclaim was made in error and that the district court should have awarded judgment to Middle Man on both claims. The Tenth Circuit, after review of the contract at issue here, determined parts were ambiguous, and that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that it was not. As such, Sprint was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The district court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Laurie Smith sought review when her Social Security disability benefit claims were denied. She alleged disability based in part on: impingement of her left shoulder; restrictions on her ability to: (1) reach and (2) handle and finger objects; and moderate nonexertional limitations. The administrative law judge concluded that Smith could work as a telequotation clerk, surveillance systems monitor, or call-out operator. As a result, the judge concluded that Smith was not disabled. Ms. Smith appealed to the district court, which upheld the administrative law judge’s determination. After its review, the Tenth Circuit found no reason to disturb the ALJ's or the district court's judgments and affirmed. View "Smith v. Colvin" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned two suits: one in state and one in federal court, and statutory limitations on the power of the federal court to enjoin the state court case. In the federal case, the Utah Attorney General and the Board of Tooele County Commissioners sued the federal government under the Quiet Title Act, attempting to quiet title in favor of Utah for hundreds of rights of way in Tooele County, Utah. Five environmental groups opposed this suit, and the federal district court permitted the groups to intervene. In the state court case, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Michael Abdo, a Tooele County resident, claimed that the Utah officials lacked authority under state law to prosecute the quiet-title action in federal court. The Utah officials asked the federal court to enjoin the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo from prosecuting the state-court case. The federal district court granted the request and entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo for an indefinite period of time. The Wilderness Alliance and Mr. Abdo appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and (2) did the federal district court have the authority to enjoin the state-court suit? After concluding it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the Tenth Circuit then concluded that the federal district court did not have authority to enjoin the Utah state court. "The All Writs Act grants a district court expansive authority to issue 'all writs necessary.' But the Anti-Injunction Act generally prohibits federal courts from enjoining state-court suits." An exception exists when an injunction is "in aid of" the federal court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. This exception applies when: (1) the federal and state court exercise in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction over the same res; and (2) the federal court is the first to take possession of the res. These circumstances are absent because the state-court action was neither in rem nor quasi in rem. Thus, the district court’s order violated the Anti-Injunction Act. View "Tooele County v. United States" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a construction company that stopped contributing to its employees’ pension plan had to pay withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act (MPPAA). Ceco Concrete Construction, LLC was a party to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that required it to contribute to the Centennial State Carpenters Pension Trust, a multiemployer pension plan. After Ceco stopped contributing, the Trust assessed MPPAA withdrawal liability. Ceco disputed the withdrawal liability and initiated arbitration. The arbitrator sided with Ceco, concluding withdrawal liability was improper. Ceco then sued in federal district court to affirm the arbitrator’s decision. The Trust and its Board of Trustees (jointly, “the Plan”) counterclaimed, asking the district court to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The district court granted summary judgment in Ceco’s favor, granted Ceco’s request for costs, and denied Ceco’s request for attorney fees. The Plan appealed the grant of summary judgment; Ceco appealed the denial of attorney fees. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in its grant of summary judgment by limiting liability to the entities under common control at the time Ceco ceased its obligation to contribute. The award of costs was vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "CECO Concrete v. Centennial State Carpenters" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Robert McCormick unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas relief from his conviction for child sexual abuse. He alleged the State of Oklahoma violated his due process rights when the prosecution suppressed evidence regarding the credentials of a witness who testified falsely that she was a certified sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) at the time of trial. After review of the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the SANE nurse was a member of the prosecution team. As such, the Court imputed her knowledge of her own lack of credentials to the prosecutor, who was obligated to disclose this impeachment evidence to the defense. Accordingly, the Court held the prosecution suppressed favorable, material evidence in violation of McCormick’s rights. The Court reversed the district court and granted McCormick’s petition for habeas relief. View "McCormick v. Parker" on Justia Law

Following the execution of a search warrant, Florentino Villanueva, Jr., was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied his motion to suppress the firearm seized during the search. Villanueva entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and any sentencing enhancement the district court might impose under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The district court overruled Villanueva’s objections at sentencing, classified him as an armed career criminal, and sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. On appeal, Villanueva challenged the validity of the warrant on multiple theories. He argued: (1) that the warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; (2) that the documents relied on for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because there was no showing of a nexus between the items sought and the residence searched and the information relied on to establish probable cause was stale; and (3) that the warrant authorized a general search. Finding no problem with the warrant or error in the proceedings regarding Villanueva's conviction or sentence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Villanueva" on Justia Law