Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Martinez appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. Plaintiff filed suit against Kevin Milyard and Susan Jones, his previous and current wardens, respectively. His complaint included a long list of grievances. Plaintiff alleged that prison employees erroneously billed him for repairs and medical services, confiscated his personal items without following the proper procedures, and failed to separate Plaintiff and another inmate after a physical altercation between them. He further contended that prison facilities lacked adequate amenities and that prison staff failed to provide him with time for fresh air and exercise. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that the Colorado Department of Corrections improperly garnished his deposits. Plaintiff's complaint failed, however, to tie any of these specific allegations to Milyard or to Jones. Because Plaintiff failed to advance "a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal," the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff's case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ed Henry appealed a district courtâs final judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees police officers Jacob Storey and Amy Fangio after a jury trial. He contended that the district court erred in (1) granting judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to these Defendants on two of his claims and (2) rejecting a proposed jury instruction. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights complaint against several Defendants arising from a night-time police stop. Plaintiff, an African-American, was pulled over in a rental vehicle. He was ordered out, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a marked police vehicle. After an investigation, officers realized that the rental vehicle driven by Plaintiff had been erroneously reported as stolen. Plaintiff was then released. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was singled out because of his race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also alleged that the officers used excessive force. Defendants put on no evidence. Plaintiff proposed a jury instruction to the effect that the officersâ compliance with standard operating procedures could not be considered in determining whether they used excessive force. The court did not so instruct the jury. The jury ultimately found that Officer Storey had not engaged in racial profiling and that Officer Fangio had not used excessive force. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Defendants that the submitted jury instructions âcomprehensively and correctlyâ covered the elements of the excessive force claim. The Court affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects.

This appeal arose from a dispute between a city and a rural water district over their rights to serve customers in several annexed areas of Douglas County, Kansas. Rural Water District No. 4 brought this suit against the City of Eudora under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the City violated the District's exclusive right to provide water service to current and prospective customers in violation of 7 U.S.C. 1926(b). On appeal, the Tenth Circuit was asked to resolve multiple federal and state legal issues concerning the competitive relationship between the water district and local municipality. Upon careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district courtâs judgment and vacated the trial verdict. The Court remanded the matter for further proceedings solely on the issue of whether the District's cooperation to secure a Rural Development guarantee was necessary to carry out the purposes of its organization. All other issues on appeal and cross-appeal were affirmed.

The Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act provides that individuals adjudged to be sexually violent predators due to a mental abnormality or personality disorder shall be committed to the custody of the secretary of social and rehabilitation services for control, care and treatment until such time as the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe to be at large. Appellant Timothy Burch was a sexually violent predator committed to the Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP) at Larned State Hospital. He and other Larned residents initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to challenge the adequacy of the SPTP provided at Larned. The other residents voluntarily dismissed their claims, but Appellant filed an amended complaint, insisting the SPTP is inadequate to treat his condition and provide a realistic opportunity for his release. In addition, Appellant alleged that Defendants improperly punished him by, among other things, interfering with his educational endeavors, revoking his work privileges, and reducing his treatment classification level through manipulation of his treatment progress scores. In a fifty-two page opinion, the court analyzed Appellant's allegations, distilled his claims, and concluded he was not entitled to relief. As is relevant to this appeal, the court determined that most of Appellant's claims failed to adequately allege Defendants' personal participation in the claimed misconduct. As for the rest of his claims, the court discussed the unique principles and standards governing the KSVPA and concluded that Appellant failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Regarding the claims of inadequate treatment, the court ruled that Appellant enjoyed no substantive due process right to treatment culminating in his release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's "thorough and well-reasoned order. The court accurately analyzed Mr. Burch's claims and correctly determined that he was not entitled to relief."

Plaintiff-Appellant Christie Helm appealed a district courtâs order granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Kansas (the State) on her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Helm sued the State after she was allegedly sexually harassed over a period of almost ten years by Judge Frederick Stewart, a State district judge for whom Helm served as an administrative assistant. The district court determined that the State was entitled to summary judgment because Helm fell within the "personal staff" exemption to Title VIIâs definition of "employee" and thus did not qualify for the protections afforded by the statute. Alternatively, the court ruled that summary judgment for the State was proper on the basis of the "Faragher/Ellerth" affirmative defense to employer liability for a supervisorâs sexual harassment of a subordinate. In September 1998, Helm was hired to fill an administrative-assistant position. Judge Stewart began sexually harassing Helm shortly after she was hired. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit held that the "Faragher/Ellerth" defense precluded vicarious liability against the State of Kansas for Judge Stewartâs alleged actions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court without reaching the question whether the "personal staff" exemption removed Helm from the purview of Title VII.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case pertained to a "class-of-one" equal protection lawsuit against a county government based on its demand that a property owner correct a nuisance. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC alleged that after it and Cherokee County became involved in litigation concerning a casino development agreement, the County health department targeted Kansas Penn for a regulatory enforcement action. In particular, the County sent Kansas Penn a notice stating that the unkempt condition of its property violated state and local nuisance laws and regulations and warning that failure to clean up the property would lead to an enforcement action. Although the County never brought an enforcement action against Kansas Penn, Kansas Penn sued the County and some of its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In its complaint, Kansas Penn alleged the notice of nuisance violated its right to equal protection by arbitrarily and maliciously singling it out for selective enforcement. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Kansas Penn failed to state a claim for relief under the standard set forth by "Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly," the Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiffs Ginger James and Deborah Tennison brought suit under 42 U.S.C.1983 alleging Defendant Prue Public Schoolsâ (the District) termination of their employment violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They appealed a summary judgment that rejected their claims, in which the district court determined (1) their pre-termination hearing satisfied their due-process rights, and (2) they failed to show their speech was a motivating factor for the termination. The School Board became concerned about the Districtâs finances. It initiated a financial investigation by retaining a financial consultant and terminated the treasurerâs employment. Without recommending any particular positions to be cut, Jones further opined there would have to be some reduction in personnel and it appeared the District had too many administrators. Eliminating the positions of an elementary and a high-school principal, it decided, would have the least impact on the students and was in the Districtâs best interest. Accordingly, the Board voted to eliminate the positions due to lack of funds and to dismiss Plaintiffs. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the issues Plaintiffs raised in their appeal did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a denial of due process. Furthermore, they did not establish the occurrence and/or the content of the speech sufficiently for the district court to hold in their favor. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district courtâs decision.

Prisoner (Defendant) Grover Miskovsky, a prisoner of the State of Oklahoma, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in district court alleging that Justin Jones, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), had violated his constitutional rights by seizing the money in his prison draw account. The district court granted Jones summary judgment on the constitutional claims, dismissed without prejudice Defendantâs challenge to his state sentence, and gave him leave to amend. After Defendant filed an amended complaint, which named additional defendants, the court dismissed his new claims. Defendant then brought this appeal. In 2000, and Oklahoma state court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 84 yearsâ imprisonment for racketeering, 7 yearsâ imprisonment for indecent exposure, and 2 yearsâ imprisonment for attempted perjury by subordination. The court ordered that that he pay fines, compensation to victims, and costs by using his entire draw account. The prison made no payment from Defendantâs draw account for his state-court fines and costs until 2006. The prison made additional periodic payments toward the amount owed until 2007. In his appeal, Defendant alleged that ODOCâs use of his entire draw account to pay his fines and court costs violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection. A federal magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing most claims with prejudice, although it dismissed without prejudice Defendantâs state-law claims and some claims not factually related to the alleged misuse of his draw account. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs decision to dismiss Defendantâs case.

In January 2011, Daniel Bagwell filed a pro se complaint against his former employer, Safeway Denver Milk Plant (âSafewayâ). In his complaint, Mr. Bagwell asserted claims for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Bagwell included only two factual assertions in his complaintâthat (1) his "hours changed," and (2) he experienced "career-ending performance evaluations." Safeway filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Bagwellâs complaint did not comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Bagwell did not respond to the motion. The district court dismissed his complaint, noting that Mr. Bagwellâs complaint was "entirely devoid of sufficient facts to state a claim for retaliation." Mr. Bagwell did not object to any of the magistrate judgeâs specific findings or recommendations. Instead, he requested that his "case be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America on the grounds that Title VII is unconstitutional and violate[d his] civil rights." Upon review of Mr. Bagwell's appeal of the district court's findings in his case, the Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Bagwell waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judgeâs recommendation. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed this matter.

Plaintiff-appellant Darlene Low, an employee of the Southwestern Power Administration, filed a complaint against the Secretary of the Department of Energy asserting five claims: three retaliation claims and one hostile work environment claim, all pursuant to Title VII, and one claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court dealt with the merits of Lowâs case in separate orders: (1) the court granted Defendantâs motion to dismiss certain claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that any claims arising from actions in 2000 were unexhausted because Low had failed to timely contact an EEO counselor about them; (2) except for the hostile work environment claim, the balance of Lowâs claims were also unexhausted. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint to add two additional retaliation claims based on meetings held in August 2008. The court denied the motion. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. At issue on the cross motions for summary judgment were two remaining claims: one for hostile work environment based on gender, and a second claim of discrimination based on gender or retaliation. The district court held that no reasonable jury could infer discrimination based on either claim. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded after thorough review of the partiesâ briefs, the record, and the applicable law that Plaintiff did not show any reversible error in this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court.