Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Sione Hoko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish Detergents, Inc. on his Title VII and state-law civil rights claims. Plaintiff worked for Huish from 1989 until he was terminated in 2005. His law position was a Supervisor in the "Raw Material Department." An internal audi report showed that from June 12 through June 22, 02005, Plaintiff repeatedly visited non-work related internet sites for extended periods of time during his workday. He was terminated based on excessive amounts of time he spent on the internet. Finding that Plaintiff was an "at-will" employee, and that he failed to provide any evidence of a hostile work environment, disparate treatment or that Huish terminated him in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Huish.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry Wayne Smith appealed a district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) officials. Plaintiff was incarcerated from 1998 to September 2002. In May 2002, he filed the action against the defendants in state court. That action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to pay costs. In November 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against the defendants in federal court. That action was dismissed with prejudice for his failure to prosecute the case in an orderly and timely fashion. During the pendency of the 2005 action, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case in September 2007. His claims arose during his incarceration in the KDOC and the bulk of the allegations relate to events from 1998 through 2002. The district court sua sponte considered the timeliness of Plaintiff's complaint before it was served on defendants, and concluded that the applicable limitations period for bringing all of Plaintiff's claims was two years. Before dismissing the action, the district court reviewed Plaintiff's response to its show cause order and then dismissed the case with prejudice. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Plaintiff's case, and affirmed its decision.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff Stephen Burnett appealed a district court’s order dismissing his civil-rights complaint and denying his motion to add a defendant. Plaitiff's case arose from a six-week lockdown at the Cimmaron facility in which Plaitiff was incarcerated. "The linchpin of [Plaintiff's] suit was not whether prison officials had the authority to impose a lockdown, but instead whether the restrictions imposed during the lockdown so altered the conditions of his confinement as to violate his constitutional rights." The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation which concluded that Plaintiff's claims against Warden Joseph Taylor were moot and should have been dismissed without prejudice. As to the director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Justin Jones, the magistrate found that even if the claims against him were not moot, those claims should have been dismissed with prejudice because the complaint failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted and would have been futile to amend. The magistrate also denied Plaintiff's motion to add Warden Robert Ezell as a defendant. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, effectively ending Plaintiff's case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit partly affirmed, partly reversed the district court (and magistrate judge's) decision. Because the Court's conclusion that the claims against Mr. Jones were moot but for different reasons than the district court, it reversed the decision for dismissal without prejudice. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects.

Appellant Taissiya Oleyniikova , an employee of the State of Colorado's Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Information Tenchology Services brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages against the DHS' executive director and some of the agency's employees (Defendants). Appellant challenged the grant of summary judgement in favor of DHS. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff emailed a supervisor stating that she felt "insulted" by another co-worker, because that co-worker accused her of lying. Over the next few months, Plaintiff sought a promotion within her department, but claimed that this attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of her right to freedom of speech. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's ruling on the retaliation claim only. Finding that Plaintiff's statements were not on a matter of public concern, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Olivea Marx appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee General Revenue Corporation (GRC). Plaintiff defaulted on her student loan. GRC was hired by her lender to collect on the account. Plaintiff sued GRC alleging abusive and threatening phone called in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court, after a one-day trial in May 2010, found that the challenged collection practices were not abusive and threatening given its view of what actually occurred. Plaintiff did not appeal these findings, instead she contested the court's conclusion that a fax sent to her employer asking about her employment status did not violate the FDCPA's provision against debt-collector communications with third parties. Finding that the district court did not error in its decision made in her case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's order.

On a summer evening in 2005 a sniper shot down a police helicopter over Albuquerque. Police would implicate Plaintiff Jason Kerns, but after charges were filed, investigation would reveal that the bullet that brought down the helicopter could not have come from any of the firearms or ammunition Plaintiff owned, nor from the direction of his home. Plaintiff sued several members of the Albuquerque Police Department, alleging they had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his house on the night of the helicopter crash. He then sued the local sheriff, arguing the sheriff's efforts to obtain his psychiatric records violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights. Plaintiff also sued other members of sheriff's department, accusing them of false arrest and malicious prosecution. All defendants moved for dismissal on immunity grounds, which was denied. Defendants appealed. Upon careful review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

After Plaintiff-Appellant David Cook brought his pro se "1983" action against prison officials, the district court found his complaint legally deficient and ordered him to amend it. Instead of amending the complaint, Plaintiff filed "motion after motion seeking…discovery and the appointment of counsel." The district court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond, and the court dismissed his complaint. He appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit who affirmed the dismissal: "[t]he simple fact is that no litigant, even a pro se litigant, may repeatedly disregard a court’s orders without inviting the lawful possibility that his case might be dismissed."

Plaintiffs Osler and Georgia Childress appealed a district court's order that dismissed their 42 U.S.C 1983 medical-indifference case against Defendant Robert Harms. In 2006, Mr. Childress was staying at a hotel in Midvale, Utah when a motel clerk saw him staggering around his room and running into things. She called police and reported that an intoxicated guest was causing a commotion. Police arrived on the scene and arrested him. Upon Mr. Childress's arrival at the jail, nurses Robert Harms and Joel Smith examined him while he was handcuffed to a gurney. Mr. Childress denied drinking and answered questions about his military duties without difficulty, although his speech was slightly slurred. Authorities would later learn that Mr. Childress has suffered a cerebellar stroke while in custody which was originally dismissed as intoxication. The district court determined that Nurse Harms merely misdiagnosed Mr. Childress and dismissed his claims by summary judgment. On appeal, Mr. Childress argued that the district court "confuse[d] knowledge of harm with knowledge of the risk of harm." The Tenth Circuit concluded that Mr. Childress failed to establish the subjective component of "deliberate indifference," and as such, summary judgment was appropriately entered on his claim.

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Adam Kartiganer appealed two district court orders that ultimately dismissed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against several law enforcement members. In 2006, Plaintiff was arrested during a traffic stop in Walsenburg, Colorado. Evidence was seized during the stop, including financial instruments belonging to individuals other than Plaintiff. Based on the seized evidence,the district attorney's office decided probable cause existed to file felony charges against Plaintiff. A public defender was assigned to Plaintiff's case, who promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop. The court found no probable cause, and the DA's office dismissed the charges. Plaintiff sued alleging he had been falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned and subjected to malicious prosecution for five months before the charges were dropped. A federal magistrate granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit carefully reviewed the "lengthy and thorough" decisions by the magistrate judge, as adopted and modified by the district court. The Court agreed completely with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, and affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims in this case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mayra Carrera was a trimmer in a Tyson meat processing plant in Kansas. One day, four of her co-workers made sexual gestures toward her by "moving and shaking their hips." When Plaintiff complained, a manager immediately spoke to the co-workers. No further incidents occurred, but Plaintiff felt ostracized by employees keeping their distance. Plaintiff asked for a transfer to another plant. Despite the transfer, Plaintiff filed suit alleging a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyson. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred by focusing only on the gesturing incident and ignoring the fact that afterward her co-workers ostracized her. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did consider this aspect of Plaintiff's claim "correctly observing that standoffish, unfriendly, and unapproachable behavior" was insufficient to establish an objectively hostile work environment.