Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-officers unlawfully detained plaintiffs and searched their home, summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed where defendants' discovery of marijuana ultimately gave them reason to detain plaintiffs, to seize the marijuana, and to perform two more searches of plaintiffs' apartment.

Read Harman v. Pollock, No. 08-4068

Appellate Information

Filed November 18, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Henry

Counsel

For Appellants:

Robert B. Sykes, Alyson E. Carter, Scott R. Edgar, Robert B. Sykes & Associates, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT

For Appellees:

J. Clifford Petersen and Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, UT

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-hospital board deprived plaintiff-physician of his First Amendment right of free speech through a campaign of retaliation against him for speaking out about substance abuse at the hospital, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where neither the hospital's investigation of plaintiff nor its warning letter to him constituted an adverse employment action for First Amendment purposes.

Read Couch v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem. Hosp. of Carbon County, No. 08-8001

Appellate Information

Filed November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Ebel

Counsel

For Appellant:

Elizabeth A. Phelan, Gregory R. Piché and Mark B. Wiletsky, Holland & Hart LLP, Boulder, CO

For Appellees:

Janet Schroer, Monty Barnett, John Lebsack and James M. Meseck, White and Steele, P.C., Denver, CO

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search, denial of summary judgment for defendant based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where defendant's alleged conduct in exceeding the scope of the search warrant violated plaintiff's clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment.  However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) defendant's alleged violation of Oklahoma law was not, without more, significantly relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis; and 2) a search warrant was constitutionally valid.

Read Bowling v. Rector, No. 07-6284

Appellate Information

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Ebel

Counsel

For Appellant:

Charles A. Brandt and Robert S. Lafferrandre, Pierce, Couch Hendrickson, Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, OK

For Appellee:

April M. Davis and Stephen Jones, Jones, Otjen & Davis, Enid, OK

In an action alleging that defendants unlawfully conspired to remove plaintiff's political ad from a newspaper, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the complaint failed to describe any misuse of governmental power.

Read Hall v. Witteman, No. 08-3251

Appellate Information

Filed October 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hartz

Counsel

For Appellant:

George M. Hall, pro se

For Appellee:

Steve Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General Steve Six, Topeka, KS

Toby Crouse, Foulston Siefkin LLP, Overland Park, KS

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by defendant-officers in arresting plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds is reversed where plaintiff's injuries were sufficient to satisfy the minimal threshold injury requirement.

Read Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, No. 07-2294

Appellate Information

Filed October 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tymkovich

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dennis W. Montoya, Montoya Law, Inc., Rio Rancho, NM

For Appellees:

Jared Abrams, City of Las Cruces, NM

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action concerning the conditions of plaintiff's involuntary confinement at a state hospital, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where individuals who are civilly committed are not "prisoners" within the meaning of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.

Read Merryfield v. Jordan, No. 09-3002

Appellate Information

Filed October 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Baldock

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dustin J. Merryfield, pro se

For Appellees:

Danny J. Baumgartner, Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, KS

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the Medicaid Act and denied him due process by rejecting his application on the basis of unwritten, unascertainable standards, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the statutory provisions upon which plaintiff relied did not confer private rights enforceable under section 1983; and 2) defendants did not violate plaintiff's right to due process, but simply applied a "sole benefit" standard to the particular facts of his case.

Read Hobbs v. Zenderman, No. 08-2099

Appellate Information

Argued: June 2, 2009

Decided: September 1, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Lucero

Counsel

For Appellant:

Duff Westbrook, Sanders & Westbrook, P.C., Albuquerque, NM

Maureen A. Sanders, Sanders & Westbrook, P.C., Albuquerque, NM

For Appellees:

Paul R. Ritzma, General Counsel/Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM

Mark Dawson Jarmie, Mark D. Jarmie LLC, Santa Fe, NM

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that traffic police for a town issued tickets for infractions committed outside the town's boundaries, denial of qualified immunity for defendants is reversed where the traffic stops outside municipal boundaries did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law at the time of the violations.

Read Swanson v. Mountain View, No. 08-1105

Appellate Information

Filed August 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tymkovich

Counsel

For Appellants:

Eric M. Ziporin, Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C., Denver, CO

For Appellees:

Althea S. Licht, Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Denver, CO

In a Title VII action alleging that Defendant improperly terminated Plaintiff while she was on medical leave, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the intent necessary for religious discrimination; but reversed in part, where there were many reasons to question Defendants' evidence regarding the alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination.

Read DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Mgmt. Corp., No. 08-1344

Appellate Information

Filed August 14, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hartz

Counsel

For Appellant:

Bruce M. Franson, Robert H. Wilde, Attorney at Law, P.C., Midvale, UT

For Appellees:

Lisa Marcy McGarry, Hobbs & Olson, L.C., Salt Lake City, UT

Lincoln W. Hobbs, Hobbs & Olson, L.C., Salt Lake City, UT

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search, judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) officers may not remain in a home absent probable cause when consent to enter is granted but later revoked; and 2) the Fourth Amendment does not permit detention of an individual for the duration of an investigation based on a police hunch that the individual may provide aid to a suspect if allowed to leave police custody.

Read Manzanares v. Higdon, No. 07-2156

Appellate Information

Filed August 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Lucero

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dennis W. Montoya, Montoya Law, Inc., Rio Rancho, NM

For Appellee:

Kathryn Levy, Deputy City Attorney, City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Albuquerque, NM