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

Plaintiff Darrell Havens pled guilty in Colorado state court to attempted assault of a police detective. He then brought suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the detective used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the detective's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Havens failed to establish a prima facie case of excessive force and that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that Havens’ claim was barred under the Supreme Court decision "Heck v. Humphrey," (512 U.S. 477 (1994)), because he did not explain how the officer used excessive force in a way that would still be consistent with the basis of his attempted-assault conviction. View "Havens v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court initially ruled to suppress evidence of firearms seized during the arrest of Appellant Dana Huff, but the court agreed to reconsider the motion after the government presented a new legal basis for the seizure. Upon reconsideration of the motion to suppress, the court found the seizure to be proper. Huff argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the court improperly reconsidered the motion to suppress because the government provided no justification for its initial oversight and the law enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court could reconsider a motion to suppress without requiring the government to justify why it initially failed to set forth that legal basis for the seizure of evidence. The Court also held that the officers had sufficient probable cause to arrest Huff after seeing the firearms, one of which was being transported in violation of a local ordinance. View "United States v. Huff" on Justia Law

Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee Carl Davis appealed a decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas which was affirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BAP). Davis sought to avoid, as a fraudulent conveyance, debtor Tung Nguyen’s transfer to his sister of his interest in a piece of real property. Both the Bankruptcy Court and the BAP concluded that Nguyen possessed only bare legal title to the property and that such an interest is not one that may be avoided under the Bankruptcy Code. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Davis v. Pham" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Jeremy Williams petitioned for habeas relief to challenge his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and the resultant death sentence. The district court denied habeas relief, but issued a certificate of appealability (COA), giving Williams an opportunity to appeal his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In addition, the Tenth Circuit agreed to hear Williams claims of insufficient evidence and cumulative prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding Williams was not entitled to relief. View "Williams v. Trammell" on Justia Law

Multiple plaintiffs, including ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Swift-Eckrich, Inc., brought suit in Kansas state court against Americold Logistics, LLC and Americold Realty Trust (the “Americold entities”). The Americold entities removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. As the basis for removal, the Americold entities asserted the parties were completely diverse. No party challenged the propriety of removal; the district court did not address the issue. The merits of the suit were submitted to the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Americold entities. ConAgra and Swift-Eckrich appealed. After the parties filed their merits briefs, the Tenth Circuit noted a potential jurisdiction defect in the notice of removal. The issue this case presented was how the citizenship of a trust is determined: by exclusive reference to the citizenship of its trustees? The Tenth Circuit held that citizenship of a trust, just like the citizenship of all other artificial entities except corporations, is determined by examining the citizenship “of all the entity’s members.” That being the case here, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit underlying this appeal. The Tenth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court to vacate its judgment on the merits and remand the matter to state court. View "Conagra Foods v. Americold Logistics" on Justia Law

The Miss Dixie was a cargo line boat operated by defendant-appellant Jantran, Inc., a company involved in maritime transportation on the Verdigris River in Oklahoma. The Miss Dixie struck and extensively damaged a lock maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. After repairing the lock, the Corps sued Jantran for the costs of repair. The district court dismissed the Corps' suit, concluding that federal law did not allow the Corps to seek in personam damages directly from the owners of a vessel that damages a structure on navigable waters. As the court found, the applicable statute, the Rivers and Harbors Act, only allowed in rem claims against the vessel that caused the damage. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Act did not authorize in personam actions against the owners of the vessel. The Act only allowed the Corps to proceed in rem against the vessel itself. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's ruling. View "United States v. Jantran" on Justia Law

Police were able to isolate one car in a group of twenty carrying a homing beacon from money stolen minutes earlier during a bank robbery. Twenty-nine minutes into the stop, police removed defendant Christian Paetsch from his car after seeing him act suspiciously and disobey their orders by putting his hands back inside his car. About an hour after this, and after police had removed everyone from their cars, they looked through Paetsch's car window and saw a money band that banks use to wrap currency. Soon afterward, an officer with a homing beacon isolated the tracker's signal as coming from Paetsch's car. In total, police detained the other 28 people for 2 hours and 18 minutes. After conditionally pleading guilty to a bank robbery and a firearm charge, Paetsch appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued that the barricade's group seizure was unreasonable at its inception and, if not, became unreasonable because of its duration and the police's tactics used during the barricade. The Tenth Circuit evaluated the police stop at two separate stages affecting Paetsch: first, the 29 minutes he was detained as part of the general barricade seizure, and, second, the 64 minutes or so after officers developed individualized suspicion of him due to his suspicious behavior. Finding that Paetsch's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated at either stage, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying his suppression motion. View "United States v. Paetsch" on Justia Law

Patipan Nakkhumpun, lead plaintiff in a securities class action, represented investors who purchased securities in Delta Petroleum Corporation. Defendants were former officers and a board member of Delta who allegedly violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission by misleading investors through statements about (1) a proposed transaction with Opon International, LLC and (2) Delta’s financial condition. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Nakkhumpun had failed to allege: (1) loss causation regarding the statement about the Opon deal; and (2) falsity regarding the statements about Delta’s financial condition. Nakkhumpun moved for leave to amend, and the district court denied the motion on the ground of futility. On appeal, the parties disputed whether Nakkhumpun adequately pleaded falsity, scienter and loss causation with regard to the Opon transaction, and falsity and scienter with regard to Delta's financial condition. Upon further review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court concluded Nakkhumpun adequately alleged falsity, scienter and loss causation on the Opon transaction, but failed to adequately plead regarding Delta's financial condition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nakkhumpun v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant James White was a convicted sex offender who failed to keep his registration current after he moved from Oklahoma to Texas. He entered a conditional guilty plea admitting to violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), but reserved five issues for appeal. Three were challenges to his conviction on the grounds that SORNA violated the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Then defendant attacked his sentence, claiming the district court erred: (1) by calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range as if he were a tier III sex offender; and (2) by imposing special conditions of supervised release limiting his contact with his minor grandchildren and nieces. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that SORNA was the product of a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power, and that it did not violate the Tenth Amendment or the Ex Post Facto Clause. But the Court concluded the district court erred in classifying defendant as a tier III sex offender and vacated defendant's sentence and conditions of supervised release. Defendant's conviction was affirmed but the case remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

The government applied for a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to defendant-appellee Jose Herrera's car. A magistrate judge ultimately approved the warrant. The tracking device was attached to defendant's car. Officers pulled defendant over and discovered drugs in a hidden compartment. The district court, in review of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the drugs, held that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and granted defendant's motion. In his motion to suppress, defendant argued that the government's conduct was in violation of "Franks v. Delaware," (438 U.S. 154 (1978)), which held that a Fourth Amendment violation occurs if: (1) an officer’s affidavit supporting a search warrant application contains a reckless misstatement or omission that (2) is material because, but for it, the warrant could not have lawfully issued. To win an evidentiary hearing to prove a Franks violation, a defendant must do more than allege a problem with the warrant. The government argued on appeal, inter alia, that the district court erred in applying both aspects of the Franks test. "[T]the district court ... never issued a factual finding that the confidential informant [used as the basis for the warrant] was generally untrustworthy... neither could the district court have done so on this record." The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court misapplied both portions of the Franks test, so its order suppressing evidence was reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Herrera" on Justia Law