Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Tenth Circuit considered whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) properly exercised its discretion to reject a gift of property by a member of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to the tribe. The Court noted that this appeal also raised a novel jurisdictional question regarding its review of administrative decisions following a remand from district court. James Smith wanted to transfer to the tribe a portion of his property interest in the Maria Christiana Reserve No. 35 (southwest of Kansas City) where the tribe had plans to develop gaming facilities. Federal law and restrictions on Smithâs fee interest required the BIA to approve any transfer. Citing concerns regarding fractional land interests in the Reserve as well as the long-range best interests of Reserve landowners, the BIA denied Smithâs application to transfer the land. The Tribe challenged that decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held the BIA properly exercised its discretion in denying the application. With regard to the jurisdictional question raised, the Court concluded that the government has not abandoned its right to challenge the district courtâs remand order, even though the government substantially prevailed in the district courtâs final judgment. The Court found the district court erred in its remand order reversing the BIAâs denial of Smithâs application. Therefore the Court vacated the district courtâs final judgment and its order reversing the BIA, and remanded the case for further consideration of Smithâs application consistent with this opinion.

Eric Walters was a federal employee covered by a Standard Option health insurance plan (the Plan) administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City (Blue Cross). In November 2007 he went to Weight Loss Healthcare Centers of America, Inc. (Weight Loss) to inquire about surgical treatment for obesity. Because Weight Loss had no contractual arrangement with Blue Cross as either a preferred provider or a participating provider, Walters would expect to pay more than if he used a provider that had a contract. Nevertheless, Walters had outpatient laparoscopic surgery at Weight Loss to help him better control his weight. Although Walters obtained preauthorization from Blue Cross for the surgery, there was no indication in the record that he requested or received information about his out-of-pocket costs. Weight Loss billed Blue Cross for the procedure. The Blue Cross Plan paid $2,300 according to the Planâs benefit for out-of-network providers. Weight Loss appealed the payment to the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which held that Blue Crossâs interpretation of Waltersâs Plan was correct and it had paid the proper amount. The district court affirmed OPMâs decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit determined that OPM reasonably interpreted the Plan language. However, the Court reversed the district courtâs decision because OPM neither (1) reviewed the evidence that would show whether Blue Cross had correctly calculated the Plan allowance, nor (2) explained why such review was unnecessary.

Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Lauer filed a complaint against the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation and three of its employees alleging Defendants discriminated against him for being disabled. Plaintiff did not explain the nature of the alleged discrimination or how the Defendants were involved. The district court dismissed Plaintiffâs complaint without prejudice, allowing him an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Rather than submitting an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend and for injunctive relief along with a supporting brief. Like the original complaint, these filings lacked any factual allegations relating to the claimed discrimination. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion to amend and closed the case. Plaintiff timely appealed to the Tenth Circuit who, upon review, affirmed the district courtâs order: âeven liberally construing [Plaintiffâs] subsequent pro se submittals as a form of amended complaint, they do not allege any facts that might give rise to a claim for relief.â

Plaintiffs Aviva Life & Annuity Company and American Investors Life Insurance Company (collectively, "Aviva") contended the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in rendering insurance determinations concerning certain of Plaintiffsâ bank deposit accounts. They appealed a district courtâs order upholding the FDICâs determinations. In 2008, the Kansas Bank Commissioner closed Columbian Bank & Trust Company and appointed the FDIC as receiver. At that time, Plaintiffs maintained twelve deposit accounts at Columbian. The bulk of those funds were held in two accounts (the âChallenged Accountsâ). The remaining accounts bore a variety of titles. Shortly after its appointment as receiver, the FDIC determined that each Plaintiffsâ respective accounts identified as âoperatingâ accounts, which included the Challenged Accounts, would be aggregated as corporate accounts. The FDIC further determined that the accounts designated as âbenefitsâ accounts would be separately insured as annuity contract accounts. Upon review of the FDIC's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that the FDIC ultimately concluded the deposit account records clearly and unambiguously indicated the Challenged Accounts were owned in the manner of âcorporate accounts.â Plaintiffsâ extrinsic evidence was not, therefore, ârelevant dataâ for purposes of the FDICâs final insurance determination: "[t]he absence of any discussion pertaining to this evidence in the FDICâs final determination is therefore unsurprising, and in no way arbitrary or capricious." The Court affirmed the FDIC's determination.

Plaintiff-Appellant Louanne Cypert brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and several anti-discrimination statutes alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County's (Prue Public Schools) failure to renew her employment contract violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed the District discriminated against her because of her age. The district court granted the District summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff's non-renewal hearing satisfied her Fourteenth Amendment claim to due process, and that she failed to show her speech was the motivating factor that led to the District's non-renewal, and that she failed to show the District's non-renewal resulted from discrimination. In the fall of 2008, the local School Board became concerned about the Districtâs finances. It initiated an investigation and began terminating employment contracts. Plaintiff's contract was one of the terminated contracts. On appeal, Plaintiff proffered evidence of the Board's keeping younger, lesser-qualified personnel on staff at the time of her termination. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's proffered evidence of discrimination did not amount to the requisite proof that her civil and constitutional rights were violated. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the District.

Plaintiff-Appellant Terry Winne appealed a district court's order that dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In 1999, Winne began working for the City of Lakewood, Colorado as an emergency dispatcher. In 2005, he was injured in an automobile accident, requiring that he take medication for headaches. A change in his medication in January 2008 caused him to âsuffer cognitive problems,â and he was placed on intermittent FMLA leave throughout âthe spring and summer.â On August 11, 2008, the City transferred Winne to the police departmentâs records section after a psychiatrist found him unfit for his dispatcher duties. Roughly two weeks later, the City fired Winne, âeven though he still had available FMLA leave.â The City stated âthat the termination was because of his attendance.â Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the material elements necessary for his FMLA claim. The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his case.

Plaintiffs Kansas Judicial Review, the Honorable Charles Hard and Robb Rumsey appealed a district court order that denied their motion for attorney's fees. The Tenth Circuit was asked to decide whether Plaintiffs qualified as "prevailing parties" when they secured a preliminary injunction that afforded some of the relief sought in their complaint. The court granted the injunction after finding Plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The actions of third parties mooted the case before the Tenth Circuit had the opportunity to determine the validity of the preliminary injunction on appeal. Upon review of the trial record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the preliminary injunction conferred prevailing-party status on Plaintiffs, and reversed the judgment of the lower court that held otherwise. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs David Scherer, John Licht, Mike Lopez, Barbara Brickley and Aaron Johnson brought suit to challenge the U.S. Forest Service's "amenity fee" through which it charges visitors to Mount Evans national park in Colorado. Plaintiffs asked the Tenth Circuit to strike down the Forrest Service's fee policy as facially inconsistent with Congress's directions and to hold it null and void in all applications. Upon review, the Court found it cannot strike the fee: "for better or worse, the Legislature has said that the Service may - sometimes - charge visitors. . . so some lawful applications of the policy do exist. . . [the fee] might well be susceptible to a winning challenge as applied to certain particular visitors, perhaps even the plaintiffs themselves. But that's a path the plaintiffs haven't asked us to explore and so one we leave for another day." The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' case.

The primary issue in this Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was whether the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction to review on "order for relief" entered by a bankruptcy judge for the District of Delaware. The Delaware judge entered the order after venue was transferred to the District of Colorado. The parties agreed that the order should be vacated on the ground that it is void because it was issued after the transfer was complete. However, the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel concluded that it did not have jurisdiction because the governing statute provides that an appeal of a decision by a bankruptcy judge "shall only be taken only to the district court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is serving." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and affirmed its decision.

Pro se prisoner Albert Cramer petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The lower court denied the application on the ground that his claims were procedurally defaulted because Petitioner had failed to exhaust his state remedies and his claims would now be procedurally barred if pursued in state court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court's decision." Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.