Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Diana Schaffer appealed a district court order granting summary judgment on her 42 U.S.C. 1983 malicious prosecution claims in favor of Defendants-Appellants Ashley Hollingshead, B. Gail Cameron, and Salt Lake City Corp. (“the City”). Schaffer argued that Hollingshead and Cameron, two City parking enforcement officers, falsely reported to the police that Schaffer hit them with her truck after they issued her a parking ticket. The two elements of a Section 1983 claim were: (1) deprivation of a federally protected right by (2) an actor acting under color of state law. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that the parking enforcement officers did not act under color of state law in reporting the parking incident to the police. View "Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Michael Allman applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming he could not work due to spina bifida, a shunt in his brain, chronic back pain, headaches, depression, and anxiety. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) permitted him to perform a number of jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, defeating his disability claim. At step two of the applicable five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's headaches were not a “severe impairment” within the meaning of the Social Security Act and its corresponding regulations. Nevertheless, the ALJ discussed and considered plaintiff's headaches in assessing his RFC to work. After the ALJ denied his claim, the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed after adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and overruling plaintiff's objections. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his headaches qualified as a severe impairment and that the ALJ had provided sufficient bases for not assigning more weight to his doctor's opinion. On appeal, plaintiff challenged, among other things, the district court’s findings regarding the ALJ’s determinations at steps two and four. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Allman v. Colvin" on Justia Law

The water source at the heart of this general stream adjudication was the Nambe-Pojoaque-Tesuque Basin. The State of New Mexico was engaged in individual adjudications with parties who held permits to divert the Basin’s underground water through the use of domestic water wells. Elisa Trujillo held one such domestic well permit. During her individual adjudication, she and the State disputed her water rights. In 2010, the special master granted summary judgment in favor of the State. In 2015, the district court entered an order that adjudicated Trujillo’s water rights based on the special master’s 2010 summary judgment order. Trujillo identified only the 2015 order in her notice of appeal, which was an interlocutory order because the district court had not yet entered a final decision in the general stream adjudication. She presented no developed argument challenging the special master’s summary judgment order that served as a basis for the 2015 order. Instead, the Tenth Circuit found that she spent much of her brief challenging two orders denying her motions to quash a 1983 injunction that placed limits on the State’s issuance of domestic well permits. Finding no reason to overturn the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Trujillo's adjudication. View "New Mexico v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

In 2011, Samuel Pauly was shot to death through the window of his New Mexico home by one of three state police officers investigating an earlier road rage incident on Interstate 25 involving his brother. His father, on behalf of Samuel Pauly’s estate, filed a civil rights action against the three officers, the State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, and two state officials, claiming defendants violated his son’s Fourth Amendment right against the use of excessive force. The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motions, and they appealed. Taking the facts as the district court determined them, in the light most favorable to plaintiff estate, the issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was: whether an officer outside someone’s home in the dark of night with no probable cause to arrest anyone and behind the cover of a wall 50 feet away from a possible threat, with no warning shot a man pointing his gun out of his well-lighted window at an unknown person in his yard while the man’s brother fired protective shots in the air from behind the house, a reasonable jury could find that one of the officers was not in immediate fear for his safety or the safety of others. The Court concluded that any objectively reasonable officer in this position "would well know" that a homeowner has the right to protect his home against intruders and that the officer had no right to immediately use deadly force in these circumstances. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the officer. View "Pauly v. White" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leslie Taylor asked the Colorado Medicaid program to combine the benefits she received through two assistance programs to help her get to medical appointments. If approved, this combination would allow the agency to pay attendants for time driving Taylor to and from her appointments. The agency refused, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the refusal constituted discrimination against Taylor based on her disability. The Tenth Circuit concluded that this refusal did not constitute discriminate against Taylor based on her disability. View "Taylor v. Colorado Dept of Health Care" on Justia Law

Octavio Gutierrez-Orozco (Gutierrez), a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally. Gutierrez insisted he entered the United States in March 1996. He remembered that date because his wife, who remained in Mexico, was pregnant with the second of their four children, who was born in September 1996. He claimed to have lived in the United States continuously since then, except for a brief, two-month trip back to Mexico in mid-1999 when his wife was ill, after which border patrol twice hindered his reentry. His wife joined him here sometime in 2000. Gutierrez’s immigration troubles began in February 2008, when a domestic violence incident with his teenage son led to a simple assault conviction. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Gutierrez conceded removability but requested cancellation of removal or, in the alternative, voluntary departure. The IJ conducted a hearing and concluded Gutierrez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate a ten-year continuous physical presence in the United States from April 1, 1998, to April 1, 2008; good moral character for that time period; and an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also denied voluntary departure because Gutierrez failed to maintain good moral character during the relevant time frame and, alternatively, as an exercise of discretion. Gutierrez appealed to the BIA for relief from the IJ’s decision. The BIA denied relief, agreeing with the IJ. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Gutierrez-Orozco v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. appealed a district court’s dismissal of its due-process claims against the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). After KDOT removed two Martin Marietta quarries from its preapproved lists of limestone aggregate suppliers, Martin Marietta unsuccessfully sought pre- and post-deprivation hearings from KDOT. Among its many claims in its federal lawsuit, Martin Marietta asserted a property-right claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming a property interest in keeping its two quarries on “the approved list” of aggregate suppliers, and a liberty interest in its reputation as a supplier of quality materials under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court disagreed, dismissing these claims on the pleadings. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Martin Marietta had not plausibly alleged a protected property interest, and thus that KDOT did not violate Martin Marietta’s procedural-due-process rights by failing to provide pre- or post-deprivation hearings. Furthermore, the Court held that Martin Marietta had no cognizable liberty interest, because KDOT did not make defamatory statements about Martin Marietta and because Martin Marietta failed to allege sufficiently significant harm to its business. View "Martin Marietta Materials v. Kansas DOT" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were descendants of the victims of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre and brought suit for an accounting of the amounts they alleged the U.S. government held in trust for payment of reparations to their ancestors. Because the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Flute v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Phillip Mocek was arrested for concealing his identity after filming airport security procedures and being questioned on suspicion of disorderly conduct. He then sued agents of the Transportation Security Administration, officers of the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, and the City of Albuquerque for alleged constitutional violations. He asserted that he was arrested without probable cause and in retaliation for protected speech. He further contended that the officers and City abused process under New Mexico law. The district court dismissed each of his claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, it was not clearly established that a plaintiff could maintain a retaliatory arrest claim for an arrest arguably supported by probable cause. Mocek also failed to state claims for malicious abuse of process or municipal liability. View "Mocek v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Petitioners Neil and Andrea Feinberg and Kelly McDonald run Total Health Concepts (THC), a Colorado marijuana dispensary. Colorado has legalized the sale of marijuana, but this permissible use runs in defiance of federal criminal law. Officials at the IRS have refused to recognize business expense deductions claimed by companies like THC on the ground that their conduct violates federal criminal drug laws. Petitioners have challenged the IRS’s policy after the agency disallowed their business expense deductions. Among other things, petitioners argued that the agency lacked authority to determine whether THC trafficked in an unlawful substance and, as a result, they suggested that their deductions should have been allowed like those of any other business. As the litigation progressed, the IRS issued discovery requests asking the petitioners about the nature of their business. Petitioners resisted these requests, asserting that their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination relieved them of the duty to respond. The IRS responded to petitioners’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment by moving to compel production of the discovery it sought. Ultimately, the tax court sided with the IRS and ordered petitioners to produce the discovery the agency demanded. Because the tax court proceedings were still ongoing and no final order existed that would give the Tenth Circuit jurisdiction over this appeal, petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review that petitioners did not carry their burden for mandamus relief, and denied their petition. View "In re: Feinberg" on Justia Law