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

Joseph Harjo was tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma federal court for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country under the Major Crimes Act. The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Harjo challenged his conviction, arguing that the Major Crimes Act is unconstitutional and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior child abuse under Federal Rule of Evidence 414.Previously, Harjo was charged by the state of Oklahoma with child sexual abuse and was convicted by a state jury, resulting in a life sentence. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which determined that Muskogee was within the Muscogee Creek Nation, Oklahoma's jurisdiction was invalidated, and Harjo's conviction was set aside. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on one count of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent that establishes Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs and the unique status of Indians as a separate people with their own political institutions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of five child witnesses under Rule 414. The district court had determined that a reasonable jury could conclude the prior acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence and that the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court carefully addressed the relevant factors and reached a permissible conclusion on the admissibility of the testimony. Therefore, the court affirmed Harjo's conviction and life sentence. View "United States v. Harjo" on Justia Law

Deborah Bradshaw and Chrystal Antao sued American Airlines and Mesa Airlines, alleging injuries and damages from the airlines' negligent handling of an in-flight emergency. During a June 2020 flight, the aircraft experienced a malfunction that led to a loss of cabin pressure, requiring an emergency descent. The plaintiffs claimed the pilot failed to properly inform passengers of the threat and descended too rapidly, while American Airlines failed to provide medical personnel upon landing.The case was initially filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, concluding that federal law preempted Oklahoma's common-carrier standard of care in aviation safety. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a state negligence claim using the federal "reckless-or-careless manner" standard but found no evidence that the airlines violated this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations preempt state law in the field of aviation safety. The court agreed that the federal "careless or reckless manner" standard of care applies, preempting Oklahoma's common-carrier standard. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding a violation of federal regulations by the airlines and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Bradshaw v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

Steven M. Hohn, the defendant, was convicted of multiple drug and firearm charges. While awaiting trial, he was detained at CoreCivic, where the Kansas U.S. Attorney’s Office (Kansas USAO) obtained and listened to his attorney-client phone calls. Hohn later discovered this and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his judgment or reduce his sentence, arguing that the government’s intrusion violated his Sixth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Hohn’s § 2255 petition. The court found that Hohn did not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his attorney-client call because he knew the call would be recorded and did not follow the proper steps to privatize it. The court also concluded that Hohn waived the attorney-client privilege by making the call despite knowing it would be recorded. Consequently, the court did not reach a direct Sixth Amendment analysis, as it determined that the privilege was a necessary underpinning of Hohn’s Sixth Amendment right.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court overruled its precedent in Shillinger v. Haworth, which had established a structural-error rule presuming prejudice when the government intentionally intrudes into the attorney-client relationship without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The Tenth Circuit held that a Sixth Amendment violation of the right to confidential communication with an attorney requires the defendant to show prejudice. Since Hohn conceded that he suffered no prejudice from the prosecution’s obtaining and listening to his six-minute call with his attorney, his claim failed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying Hohn’s § 2255 petition. View "United States v. Hohn" on Justia Law

Autumn Bertels was severely injured in a car accident involving her grandmother, Elizabeth Bertels, and another driver, Denver Barr, who both died in the crash. Autumn later filed a lawsuit against Elizabeth's estate, and they reached an agreement where the estate assigned its claims against Elizabeth's insurer, Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, to Autumn. The agreement stipulated that Autumn would not seek to collect from the estate's assets and would cover the estate's litigation expenses. A judge awarded Autumn a $15.75 million judgment against the estate, and she subsequently sued Farm Bureau for breach of contract and bad faith.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Autumn's suit against Farm Bureau, ruling that she lacked standing because the assignment from the estate was invalid. The court determined that Autumn provided no consideration for the assignment, as her promises were already required by the Kansas nonclaim statute, which bars claims against a deceased person's estate after a certain period and requires the claimant to pay the estate's litigation expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the nonclaim statute barred Autumn's claim against the estate's assets and required her to pay the estate's expenses, rendering her promises in the agreement illusory and without consideration. Consequently, the assignment was invalid, and Autumn lacked standing to sue Farm Bureau. The court also rejected Autumn's arguments regarding tolling of the nonclaim statute due to her minority and other constitutional claims, finding them unpersuasive or procedurally barred. View "Bertels v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Newton Jones, the President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, was removed from office and expelled from the Union by the Union’s Executive Council after it was determined that he had misused Union funds. Jones challenged the disciplinary proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the proceedings violated the Union Constitution and his due-process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He also claimed that the district court erred by not allowing him sufficient time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and by not permitting discovery.The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Vice Presidents who had acted against Jones, affirming their decision to remove him from office. The court ruled that the Executive Council’s decision was binding and entitled to full effect. Jones then appealed the district court’s summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the Executive Council did not violate the Union Constitution in removing Jones from office. The court deferred to the Union’s interpretation of its constitutional provisions, concluding that the Council’s interpretations were not unreasonable. The court also found that Jones had not shown any violation of the LMRDA or any error by the district court in conducting the summary-judgment proceedings.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Jones received a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA and that the district court did not err in setting an expedited briefing schedule or in not allowing additional time for discovery. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment. View "International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Jones" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped Taylor Pinder for speeding. Pinder provided a driver's license that did not match his appearance. The officer arrested Pinder for providing false identification, a misdemeanor in Utah. During a search of the car incident to the arrest, the officer found methamphetamine and a handgun. Pinder was charged federally and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Pinder pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Pinder's motion to suppress, concluding the search was justified under Arizona v. Gant, which allows vehicle searches incident to arrest if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. The court also suggested the search might be justified based on Pinder's supervised release conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Tenth Circuit held that Pinder's real driver's license was relevant to the crime of providing false identification, even after the officer verified his identity. The court did not address the district court's alternative reasoning regarding supervised release conditions or the government's good faith argument raised for the first time on appeal. View "United States v. Pinder" on Justia Law

In March 2019, a group of teenage boys entered a vacant house in a high-crime neighborhood to play with BB guns. A concerned neighbor called 911, reporting several Black men entering the house, one of whom had dreads and was carrying a gun. Officer Kyle Holcomb and his colleague responded to the call. Shortly after arriving, Holcomb shot and injured 14-year-old Lorenzo Clerkley, who was unarmed and had his hands up. Clerkley sued Holcomb under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Holcomb claimed his use of force was reasonable, asserting he saw Clerkley pointing a gun at him.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed the evidence, including body-camera footage and statements from both parties. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Holcomb fired at Clerkley when he could see Clerkley did not have a gun or anything in his hand. The court held that Holcomb’s use of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law and denied his motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Holcomb’s use of deadly force was unconstitutional because Clerkley was unarmed and posed no threat. The court also held that the law prohibiting the use of deadly force against an unarmed, nonthreatening person was clearly established at the time of the incident. Therefore, Holcomb was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Clerkley v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

Mica Martinez was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Martinez sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a claim about his trial counsel’s inadequate investigation and presentation of testimony from his grandfather, mother, and uncle. He also claimed that his sentencing was fundamentally unfair due to witness testimony about his use of a racial slur and argued for reversible cumulative error.The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed Martinez’s conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence of malice aforethought and holding that trial counsel did not perform deficiently. The OCCA also rejected Martinez’s claim that the introduction of a racial slur during sentencing denied him a fair proceeding, concluding that any error was cured by the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the comment. The OCCA denied Martinez’s applications for postconviction relief, including his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of trial counsel’s investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of habeas relief. The court held that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or rely on an unreasonable factual finding in rejecting Martinez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court also found that Martinez failed to point to any clearly established federal law regarding the introduction of inflammatory evidence, and the OCCA did not base its decision on an unreasonable factual finding. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of relief on the cumulative error claim as well. View "Martinez v. Quick" on Justia Law

A federal inmate, Dustin Rowland, developed a hernia after a pretrial detention fight. A physician deemed the hernia "reducible and stable," recommending non-surgical treatments. Rowland, desiring surgery, utilized the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Administrative Remedial Program, which involves a four-step grievance process. His initial requests were denied, but a later appeal led to approval for a surgical consultation. However, Rowland's final appeal was denied for procedural reasons, and he did not correct the deficiency. He eventually received surgery but filed a lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs, seeking damages under Bivens, injunctive relief for post-operative care, and a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Rowland's Bivens claim, granted summary judgment against his injunctive relief claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion. Rowland's motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Bivens claim, noting that Rowland's case presented a new context not covered by previous Bivens cases and that the BOP's Administrative Remedial Program provided an adequate alternative remedy. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the injunctive relief claim, as Rowland failed to exhaust administrative remedies specifically for post-operative care. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FTCA claim, emphasizing the jurisdictional requirement of exhausting administrative remedies before filing suit. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Rowland's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. View "Rowland v. Matevousian" on Justia Law