Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Christopher Holyfield appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for relief from judgment. In his motion, Petitioner asserted he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to challenge on appeal the district court's use of a 1998 California conviction to sentence him to life imprisonment under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). In particular, Petitioner contended his attorney should have argued his 1998 conviction was not final at the time Petitioner committed the violation of section 841(a)(1). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[w]hen [Petitioner] violated section 841, the 1998 conviction was no longer subject to examination on direct appeal. . . . Thus, [Petitioner] committed a violation of section 841 after his 1998 conviction became final." View "United States v. Holyfield" on Justia Law

Several environmental groups challenged decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) regarding the legality of thirty-nine oil and gas leases in Southern Utah, owned by Kirkwood Oil and Gas, LLC and William C. Kirkwood. In the 1980s, Kirkwood applied to have its oil and gas leases converted to combined hydrocarbon leases, which would allow Kirkwood to extract oil from tar sands. At the time, BLM never accepted or rejected Kirkwood's applications. Between 2006 and 2008, BLM and IBLA issued several decisions declaring that the underlying oil and gas leases were "suspended" pending review of the conversion applications. The groups alleged that the BLM and IBLA violated the Mineral Leasing Act and other federal laws by retroactively deeming the leases to be suspended, avoiding expiration of the leases according to their terms. The district court held the groups did not have standing to bring its claims and dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the district court misapplied the law in important respects with regard to standing, the Tenth Circuit ultimately held that this case was not ripe for review. View "S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Palma" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Emmanuel Littlejohn was convicted of two robbery-related charges and a charge of first-degree murder, arising from his role in a 1992 robbery of a convenience store in Oklahoma City. He received extended prison sentences on the robbery charges and a death sentence on the murder charge. Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming (relevantly) that his murder conviction and death sentence were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court denied all relief and Petitioner appealed on multiple grounds. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on all grounds except for Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase and cumulative error. As to the ineffective-assistance claim, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court, with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing and any further appropriate proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. Additionally, because the resolution of Petitioner's cumulative-error claim could have been affected by the district court’s determination of his ineffective-assistance claim, the Court declined to address the merits of Petitioner's contentions concerning cumulative error. Instead, the Court directed the district court to vacate that portion of its judgment and to reconsider the cumulative-error claim. View "Littlejohn v. Workman" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Campus Village Apartments, LLC appealed denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff-Appellee Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC. Regency's complaint alleged that Campus Village conspired with the University of Colorado at Denver to monopolize student housing in and around the university's campus. Regency moved to dismiss, averring that the Tenth Circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of the district court's denial of Campus Village's motion to dismiss was not a final order. In response, Campus Village argued that the Tenth Circuit indeed had jurisdiction over this case under the "collateral order doctrine." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not err in denying Campus Village's motion to dismiss; the court's order was not an appealable final order. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Campus Village's appeal. View "Auraria Student Housing v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nick Lynch claimed that City of Denver Police Officers Defendants Adam Barrett, Stephen Kenfield, and Michael Morelock violated his constitutional right to court access by refusing to disclose who exercised excessive force against him in the course of an arrest. Furthermore, Plaintiff claimed that the City violated his right to access by adopting a "conspiracy of silence" with regard to refusing to disclose the name of the officer who allegedly used excessive force against him. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity claim with regard to Plaintiff's first claim; the court denied the City's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's second claim. All defendants appealed the denials to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under the "collateral order doctrine," the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred in denying the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. The Court concluded that the City's appeal was not "inextricably intertwined" with the officers' appeal in order to exercise pendent jurisdiction over its claim. The Tenth Circuit found "nothing at this point prevent[ed] Plaintiff's claim against Defendant City from proceeding." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the City's appeal for want of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Lynch v. Barrett, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Cory Washington pled guilty to two firearms charges. Before sentencing, the government filed a notice of prior convictions to support a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The probation office identified three predicate violent felonies: an adult conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, an adult conviction for second degree burglary, and an Oklahoma juvenile adjudication for pointing a weapon. Defendant objected to the application of the juvenile adjudication, but the district court ultimately concluded that the juvenile adjudication qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA. The court therefore applied the enhancement and sentenced Defendant to the minimum sentence under the Act. On appeal, Defendant raised his issue with the juvenile adjudication to support his sentence enhancement. Finding that the juvenile adjudication was appropriately applied as a predicate conviction under the ACCA, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kathleen and Terry Kirch appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants United Telephone Company of Eastern Kansas and Embarq Management Company (collectively "Embarq") on their claim that Embarq intercepted their Internet communications in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). Embarq is an Internet service provider (ISP). The alleged interceptions occurred when Embarq authorized NebuAd, Inc., an online advertising company, to conduct a technology test for directing online advertising to the users most likely to be interested in the ads. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment: "Although NebuAd acquired various information about Embarq users during the course of the technology test, Embarq cannot be liable as an aider and abettor. And it was undisputed that Embarq's access to that information was no different from its access to any other data flowing over its network. Because this access was only in the ordinary course of providing Internet services as an ISP, this access did not constitute an interception within the meaning of the statute." View "Kirch v. Embarq Management Co." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Elizabeth E. was a student in the Jefferson County, Colorado school system with substantial behavioral and emotional issues for which she required special education under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"). In November 2008, Elizabeth's parents, Roxanne B. and David E. enrolled her at Innercept, LLC, a residential treatment center in Idaho, and sought reimbursement from Plaintiff-Appellant Jefferson County School District R-1 (the "District"). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) concluded Parents were entitled to reimbursement for the placement under the Act. That decision was affirmed by a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), whose decision was, in turn, affirmed by the Colorado federal district court. The District appealed, arguing Innercept was not a reimbursable placement under the IDEA and that Parents' conduct precluded reimbursement. Finding that Innercept was indeed a reimbursable placement, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Jefferson County School v. Elizabeth E." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed an order that remanded this case to New Mexico state court. They originally filed an action against Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, two of its agents, and several New Mexico state officials in New Mexico state court. Plaintiffs alleged that state investment decisions were made under a corrupt “pay to play” system benefitting politically connected individuals at the expense of public pensioners. The case was removed to federal court. However, the district court remanded the entire case back to state court, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded that standing could be colorably characterized as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the appeal. View "Hill, et al v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant Gary Blehm brought a copyright infringement action against Appellees Albert and John Jacobs and the Life is Good Company (collectively “Life is Good”). Appellant created copyrighted posters featuring cartoon characters called “Penmen.” He contended that numerous Life is Good depictions of a cartoon character called “Jake” infringed on his copyrighted works. The district court granted Life is Good’s motion for summary judgment, holding that no infringement occurred because the copyrighted and accused works are not substantially similar. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: " Copying alone is not infringement. The infringement determination depends on what is copied. Assuming Life is Good copied Penmen images when it produced Jake images, our substantial similarity analysis shows it copied ideas rather than expression, which would make Life is Good a copier but not an infringer under copyright law." View "Blehm v. Jacobs, et al" on Justia Law