Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Jordan brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Plaintiff was convicted of multiple armed robberies in 1994 and the stabbing death of a fellow inmate in 1999. When he filed this action, he was imprisoned at an Administrative Maximum Facility, known as the ADX or the Supermax. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants improperly denied several separate requests for information he made pursuant to FOIA or the Privacy Act. First, Plaintiff asked for the names and titles of all staff at the Supermax, denied on the basis that the request could "reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." Second, Plaintiff asked for all documents pertaining to his psychological or psychiatric profile maintained by the prison. Plaintiff was given redacted copies of the information because some of the information in those files would not otherwise be available by law to anyone other than "an agency in litigation with the agency." In his third request, Plaintiff asked for copies of all mail that was sent to or from him and copied to staff at the Supermax. This request was denied as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose" law enforcement or prosecutorial strategy that otherwise would not be subject to disclosure. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded that Plaintiff was entitled to the documents he requested through FOIA, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

On its second trip to the Tenth Circuit, this case arose from a dispute over payment for trial transcripts. After the City ordered and paid for original hearing transcripts prepared by Ms. Bean, Mr. Livingston asked the special master to direct the City to file copies with the clerk so the plaintiffs could access them without having to obtain copies from Ms. Bean at higher cost. When the special master refused, Mr. Livingston ordered copies of the transcripts directly from the City through New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act. After Ms. Bean complained to the district court, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay reasonable court reporter’s fees for any copies of transcripts, the district court also placed a lien on any future recovery by the plaintiffs to secure payment of the yet-to-be determined amount claimed by Ms. Bean. The case eventually settled, and a final judgment entered. After he failed to submit a motion for costs and fees, including any fees owed to Ms. Bean under the lien, the court found Mr. Livingston personally liable for Ms. Bean’s fees and held back a portion of the funds from his fee payment. Mr. Livingston appealed, arguing that Ms. Bean was not a party in the district court proceedings and had not asked to intervene. The Tenth Circuit concluded Ms. Bean did not have a proprietary interest in the contents of the transcripts, and reversed the decision releasing funds to her. Ms. Bean did not appeal to the state supreme court but instead filed a "special appearance to object to subject matter jurisdiction" to vacate the Tenth Circuit's prior order. In this second appeal before the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Bean's appeal was not preserved because she did not appeal to the state supreme court.

Appellant Gabriela Cordova-Soto petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(5). Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States as a child and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991 at the age of 13. In 2005, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Appellant charging her as removable on three grounds: (1) as an aggravated felon; (2) as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude; and (3) as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. Appellant had three Kansas state-law convictions, including a 2005 conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a suspended jail term of twenty months and eighteen months' probation. Appellant was found in 2010 in Wichita, Kansas and identified as an alien who had previously been removed. No criminal charges for illegal reentry were lodged against her, but DHS issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, advising Appellant that she was subject to removal. Appellant argued to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) her underlying removal order was not lawful; and (2) her reentry into the United States after her previous removal was not illegal. On these bases she maintained that reinstatement of her previous removal order was precluded. Upon review of the DHS's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded Appellant failed to establish that DHS misconstrued the meaning of "reenters the United States illegally" in Sec. 1231 (a)(5): she was removed from the United States in 2005, and she admittedly reentered the country without the Attorney General's authorization shortly thereafter. Because she could not have entered the United States legally at that time, her reentry was illegal and she was therefore subject to reinstatement of her previous removal order. Accordingly, the Court denied Appellant's petition for review.

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.

Defendant-Appellant Alan Tukes appealed his federal conviction for bank robbery, arguing that the governmentâs evidence was insufficient to prove that the bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (âFDICâ) at the time of the crime. At trial, a prosecutor asked the bankâs branch manager: âNow, the Compass Bank, is that a bank that is federally insured by the [FDIC]?â She responded: âYes, it is.â When asked whether the bank âhasâ any documentation proving its insured status, she replied: âYes. We have a certificate.â When asked whether the certificate âhangsâ in the branch, the manager replied in the affirmative. The district court admitted the certificate, dated November 8, 1993, into evidence. The government offered no additional evidence of the bankâs insured status. At summation, Defendant argued that the government had not proven that the bank was FDIC insured at the time of the robbery. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the Tenth Circuit concluded "it is clear that a rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was insured at the time of the robbery." The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Mexican national Defendant-Appellant Nicolas Cobos-Chachas pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation. At sentencing, the district court varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced him to thirty-eight months' imprisonment, which was three months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. Defendant challenged the length of his sentence as substantively unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors listed in the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Mr. Cobos-Chachas' own perception that the sentencing factors compel[ed] a more marked variance [did] not rebut the presumption that his below-guideline sentence [was] substantively reasonable." Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Petitioners Mihiretab Teshome Jobira and Beza Teshome Jobira petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review final orders of removal. The Jobiras are natives and citizens of Ethiopia. They claimed to be brother and sister. In September 2006, the Jobiras entered the United States on visitor visas. On the date their visas expired, they applied for asylum and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). According to their applications, the Jobiras were arrested on several occasions in 2005 as a result of their activities organizing fellow high school students in support of the "Coalition for Unity and Democracy" (CUD). They alleged that during their detentions, they were interrogated, held in squalid conditions, and severely beaten or tortured. After hearing the Jobirasâ testimony, an immigration judge issued an oral decision denying relief and granting voluntary departure. The judge concluded the Jobirasâ story had not proven credible for a number of reasons. The Jobiras appealed the judge's denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A single member of the BIA dismissed their appeal. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Jobiras failed to meet the persecution standards for asylum, and necessarily failed to satisfy the higher standards required for restriction on removal under the immigration laws or relief under the CAT. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the BIA's and immigration judge's decisions.

Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy Arles appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits (SSI). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Plaintiff's request for benefits at the last step of the five-step sequential process for determining disability. At the time of the hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff was 44 years old and weighed 329 pounds. He testified about his difficulties with cramping and swelling hands after carpal tunnel surgery, swollen knees, a painful left foot, daily migraine headaches, neck pain, loss of near vision from glaucoma, low-back problems, and an ache from a rupture in his stomach. He stated that medical providers prescribed eye drops for his diagnosed low-tension glaucoma and also pain pills, sleeping pills,nerve pills, arthritis pills, and high-blood-pressure pills. Plaintiff further related that he did not take any of these medications or seek medical care because he lacked the financial resources to afford them. The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to SSI and denied his application. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJâs decision the final agency decision. The district court affirmed. On appeal of the district courtâs ruling to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff argued that the Commissionerâs denial of benefits should have been reversed because the ALJ did not perform a proper credibility determination. He also contended that throughout the sequential-evaluation process, the ALJ failed to give appropriate consideration to his restricted vision and obesity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJâs decision provided "an adequate discussion of the effect of obesity on [Plaintiff]âs RFC. Further, the ALJâs conclusion that obesity did not interfere with Plaintiff's ability to perform a restricted range of sedentary work is supported by substantial evidence." Therefore, the Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff SSI benefits.

Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy Grede appealed a district court's order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. In 2004, Plaintiff applied for benefits asserting an onset date of 2002 due to kidney stones, high blood pressure, renal and intestinal problems, hemorrhoids, pulmonary problems and left hand problems. When his insurance ended, he was required to show the disability onset for one year plus the four-month period between when his insurance ended until the time of his benefit application. After receiving denials of disability at all stages of administrative review, Plaintiff appealed to the district court, who remanded his case to the Commission for further review. And administrative law judge concluded again that Plaintiff was not disabled. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the Commissioner failed to conduct a proper analysis of his residual functional capacity (RFC). Because the Commissionerâs decision was supported by substantial evidence and the law was properly applied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner's decision.

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.