Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Decedent Charles Gray sought treatment for epilepsy at Defendant University of Colorado Hospital. In the course of his withdrawal from medication, hospital staff left Decedent unattended and he died after suffering a seizure. Plaintiffs, decedent’s estate and family members, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging that the hospital (and affiliated doctors, nurses, and staff) deprived Decedent of life without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a constitutional claim. Plaintiffs appealed. Applying the appropriate legal standards, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but for reasons somewhat different than those of the district court: "The state actor’s affirmative act creating the danger or rendering the victim more vulnerable to it does not constitute a constitutional deprivation."

Plaintiff Donna Morris brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for unlawful arrest and excessive force on behalf of her deceased husband, William Morris III, against Defendants Officer Jaime Noe and the City of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. She alleged Defendants violated her husband's rights when Noe forceably arrested him and caused him injury. Defendant Noe moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied his motion. Defendant Noe then appealed. Finding that Mr. Morris "posed no threat to Noe or others," and that the officer had reason to believe Mr. Morris was "at most, a misdemeanant," the Tenth Circuit held Defendant was not entitled to qualified to immunity on either of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court.

Plaintiff Steven Romero brought suit against Defendants Jeremy Story, Manuel Frias, and Vincent Shadd, Las Cruces, New Mexico law enforcement officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied Defendants' claim to qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to excessive force, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-appellant Jerry Thomas was a prisoner serving time in an Oklahoma state prison. He brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and sought to appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claims that employees of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections violated his constitutional rights during a period of time when he was incarcerated at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff had three "strikes" (as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)) because he had had three prior civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Specifically, the Court addressed whether Plaintiff should have been assessed a third strike based on the district court's 2008 dismissal of a previous 1983 action . The Court adopted the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in "Pointer v. Wilkinson" (502 F.3d 363) and assessed a third strike against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff-Appellant, World Publishing Company, publisher of the "Tulsa World" newspaper, appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee the United States Department of Justice. Resolving various pretrial motions, the district court held that Tulsa World had standing, denied it discovery, and concluded that the United States Marshals Service properly withheld six booking photographs ("mug shots") requested by Tulsa World through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. On appeal, Tulsa World argued that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for summary judgment and denying it discovery so that it might better respond to that motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its judgment in favor of the DOJ.

Plaintiff-Appellant Fedwa Khalik appealed the district court's decision that dismissed her Title VII employment discrimination case for failing to state a claim. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant United Air Lines in 1995, rising to the position as "Business Services Representative" before she was terminated in 2009. She claimed she was terminated because of her race, religion, national origin and ethnic heritage. She also brought a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. More than two months after Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and three weeks after the deadline to amend pleadings had passed, Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint. The district court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend as futile and untimely and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim. The district court also exercised pendent jurisdiction and dismissed the state law discrimination and retaliation claims as similarly not plausible. Upon appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court used a "heightened" standard of proof in making its determination that she had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Upon review of the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that "While the 12(b)(6) standard does not require that Plaintiff establish a prima facie case in her complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether Plaintiff has set forth a plausible claim." The Court found that Plaintiff's general assertions of discrimination and retaliation, "without any details whatsoever of events leading up to her termination, are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.

This was a case of first impression for the Court. John Doe, a registered sex offender, brought a facial challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a ban enacted by the City of Albuquerque that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering the City's public libraries. The district court denied a motion to dismiss brought by the City and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Doe. The court concluded that the ban burdened Doe's fundamental right to receive information under the First Amendment and that the City failed sufficiently to controvert Doe's contention on summary judgment that the ban did not satisfy the time, place, or manner test applicable to restrictions in a designated public forum. The City appealed both the denial of its motion to dismiss and the grant of Doe's summary judgment motion. The City, relying on a mistaken interpretation of case law regarding facial challenges, erroneously contended that it had no burden to respond to Doe's motion. Consequently, the City failed to present any reasons for its ban. "Had the City done so, it is not difficult to imagine that the ban might have survived Doe's challenge," because the Court recognized the City's "significant interest in providing a safe environment for its library patrons, especially children." However, with no response, the Court was "bound by the record" and affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Doe.

Plaintiff-Appellant Sonja Morris appealed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings on her First Amendment retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and grant of summary judgment on her claim for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in favor of Defendant Memorial Health System. Plaintiff worked as a registered nurse for Memorial and in 2007 joined the "Heart Team" which was performed all heart surgeries at the hospital. During her time with the Team, Plaintiff contended that the lead surgeon harassed her on multiple occasions. Despite participation in a teambuilding program, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Claim on Memorial in 2008. The hospital removed Plaintiff from the Heart Team and into a more "comfortable" work environment. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Memorial claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was removed from the Heart Team because she submitted her Notice of Claim. The district court granted Memorial's motion on the First Amendment claim on the ground that the notice did not contain "speech" as determined by case law. Furthermore, the court held that Plaintiff could not establish that the alleged harassment was based on her gender or pervasive enough to affect her work environment. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not err in affirming the district court.

Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart Guttman, MD had a history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. His medical license was "qualified" by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners, which subjected him to quarterly psychiatrist reports and other conditions. The Board removed the qualifications in 1995. Several years later, the Board began receiving complaints about Plaintiff. The Board reviewed Plaintiff's conduct in his practice, and in 2000, the Board summarily suspended Plaintiff's medical license after finding "clear and convincing" evidence that having Plaintiff continue his practice would be an "imminent danger to public safety." In 2001, after recognizing an extensive pattern of disruptive and abusive behavior in dealing with patients and healthcare professionals, the Board revoked Plaintiff's license. The question presented in this appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Eleventh Amendment protected New Mexico from a suit for money damages under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff challenged the Board's findings in state court, asserting that the Board's actions violated Title II of the ADA. The State court refused to consider Plaintiff's claim, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Eleventh Amendment indeed protects New Mexico from suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's ADA claim.

Pro se prisoner Plaintiff-Appellant Elvin Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper violated his constitutional rights in 2007 during a traffic stop that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest and eventual conviction for possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute. In addition to the trooper's motion to dismiss, the district court determined that the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint were barred by the statute of limitations. After review of Plaintiff's opening brief, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff's arguments were inadequate to support his complaint. Accordingly, the Court agreed with the district court in dismissing Plaintiff's case.