Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce Field filed a wrongful termination action against his former employer the Board of Water Commissioners for the City and County of Denver (Denver Water), alleging three "1983" retaliation claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Denver water and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff was a project manager. He came to suspect misconduct between senior engineers and several contractors at three projects he was working on. Plaintiff expressed his concerns to his superiors, who responded that the matters were "taken care of." Denver Water assured Mr. Field they were retaining a national auditing firm to conduct an external review, but he alleged the firm was unqualified and biased. Plaintiff's supervisor issued a recommendation for corrective action against Plaintiff, noting that an internal auditor had "seen nothing that could not be corrected" at the end of the projects. Further, the supervisor reported that Plaintiff was insubordinate and "willing to go to extreme lengths to prove his unreasonable belief that the contractors and Denver Water management are corrupt." The supervisor recommended that Plaintiff be terminated. Finding that the district court "accurately and thoroughly examined Mr. Field's claims and concluded they were all meritless," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's case.

This case arose from claims that the federal government, with the assistance of major telecommunications companies, engaged in widespread warrantless eavesdropping in the United States following the September 11, 2001 attacks. At issue was whether plaintiffs have standing to bring their statutory and constitutional claims against the government for what they described as a communications dragnet of ordinary American citizens. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims were not abstract, generalized grievances and instead met the constitutional standing requirement of concrete injury; nor do prudential considerations bar the action; the claims did not raise a political question nor are they inappropriate for judicial resolution; and the court did not impose a heightened standing requirement simply because the case involved government officials in the national security context. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal on standing grounds and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their complaint against government officials and a group of telecommunications companies. Plaintiffs challenged section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1885a, as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. Section 802 allowed the U.S. Attorney General to certify that a telecommunications company provided assistance at the behest of the government in connection with investigation of terrorism, thereby triggering immunity on the theory that application of section 802 required dismissal of plaintiffs' case and negated the cause of action under various federal statutes. The court held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiffs demanded no monetary damages. Consequently, the court need not reach the merits of the Takings Clause claim.

These consolidated appeals arose from claims that major telecommunications carriers assisted the government with intelligence gathering following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Plaintiffs challenged the legality of the telecommunications companies' participation in the surveillance program. At issue was the constitutionality of section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1885a, which allowed for immunity for the telecommunications companies. The court concluded that the statute was constitutional and did not violate Articles I and III of the Constitution or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss was affirmed as to the challenged section 802 claims.

This appeal involved the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Alabama Act No. 3010-761 (Act). The Act would prohibit a state or local government employee from arranging "by payroll deduction or otherwise" the payment of any contribution for "political activity." The district court found that the statute impinged on important free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that appellees were likely to succeed in showing the Act was both overbroad in its restrictions and unduly vague as to what constituted political activity. The court concluded that the constitutional question before it turned upon a question of state law and therefore delayed final judgment as to the preliminary injunction until the Alabama Supreme Court had an opportunity to render is interpretation of the Act by answering the court's certified questions.

Payne County Jail Administrator Brandon Myers appealed a district court's order that denied his motion for summary judgment that asked for qualified immunity. While held as a pretrial detainee at the Payne County Jail, Plaintiff John David Palmer suffered from an infection of the flesh-eating methicillin-resistent staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria. The jail's medical transport officer took Plaintiff to Dr. Daniel Hill who did not diagnose Plaintiff as having MRSA, but drained the boils Plaintiff had developed, administered an injection of an antibiotic, and prescribed two more antibiotics for oral use at the jail. Dr. Hill advised that Plaintiff should return in two days for a follow-up visit, but warned that if Plaintiff developed a fever, he should be taken to the hospital. Ultimately, Plaintiff developed a fever, his condition worsened, and he alleged in his complaint against prison officials that their inattention or delay in taking him to the hospital caused him tremendous suffering and caused him to accumulate $24,000 in medical bills. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Mr. Myers qualified immunity.

Appellants, the Libertarian party and three candidates, challenged the constitutionality of North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-36, contending that the statute as applied to them violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause because it prevented appellants' names from appearing on the 2010 general election ballot despite their winning the party's primary. The court held that the burden imposed by the statute was not undue or excessive and the state had a compelling interest in having a minimum vote requirement before a candidate could appear on the general election ballot. Therefore, the court held that N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-36 was not unconstitutional on First or Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Furthermore, because the law applied equally to all candidates and did not result in unequal treatment, the court held that the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court.

Plaintiff, a group representing taxicab companies that hold only one to three permits for cabs, asserted that the city's plan to distribute new taxicab permits violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and plaintiff appealed. The court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating taxi companies differently based on size and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Appellant filed suit against four Minneapolis police officers and the City of Minneapolis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the officers used excessive, unreasonable force against her, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the excessive force claim and held that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force against appellant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the section 1983 claims against Officer Carroll because appellant admitted that he did not use excessive force against her. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that because appellant did not allege any damages, she failed to state a claim under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Minn. Stat. 13.01, subdiv. 1. The court held, however, that the district court failed to consider whether appellant could recover her costs and disbursements in her December 19, 2008 action to compel compliance under Minn. Stat. 13.01, subdiv. 4. Therefore, the court remanded for a ruling on whether appellant was entitled to costs or disbursements under that section of the statute. The court finally held that the district court properly dismissed appellant's common law battery claims against officers as untimely because the two-year statute of limitations period had expired. The court held, however, that appellant presented sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on the basis of official immunity on the alleged state tort claims.

Plaintiff brought suit against various officials arising from his name not being placed on the 2010 primary election ballot in Houston. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff's procedural due process claim was properly rejected where plaintiff had no property right to be a candidate. The court also held that plaintiff's substantive due process claim failed because there were no disputed facts regarding plaintiff's application containing an incorrect residential address where plaintiff made an oral admission that he did not live at the listed address. The court further held that plaintiff's Equal Protection claim was properly denied where the actions of the official at issue did not constitute intentional or purposeful discrimination. The court finally held that plaintiff failed to establish that Section 141.032(e) of the Texas Election Code was unconstitutional. Accordingly, because plaintiff filed his application for candidacy in the last hour of the last possible day, which limited his opportunity to refile a correct application, the court affirmed the judgment.