Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Sammy McMurray filed a series of appeals to the Tenth Circuit. He has been confined to the New Mexico Behavioral Health Instituteâs long-term care division. As could be discerned from Petitionerâs appellate brief, he challenged the evidence used to convict him. The district court dismissed his case without prejudice, but several months later, Petitioner filed a series of motions in an attempt to reopen the case. The district court denied those motions and advised Petitioner that it was considering filing restrictions. When Petitioner did not respond, the court entered its order imposing filing restrictions. Petitioner appealed only that order to the Tenth Circuit. After thoroughly reviewing Petitionerâs filings and the record in this case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs order.

Pro se prisoners Petitioners Arnoldo Zapata and Humberto Galvan both sought a certificate of appeal from the Tenth Circuit to challenge their respective convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Petitioners were tried before a grand jury and sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment for Mr. Zapata, and 121 months for Mr. Galvan. The district court denied both Petitioners' motions to vacate, set aside or correct their sentences. Petitioners contended the district court erred in calculating their sentences. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that neither Petitioner made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" and denied their requests for certificates of appealability. The Court dismissed Petitioners' appeals.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dawn Bunch brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County (Prue Public Schools) violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District in which the court concluded Plaintiff had no protected property interest in her employment and failed to show her speech was a motivating factor for her termination. An internal investigation found that Plaintiff âeither [. . .] wasnât properly trained or she was not doing her job as required.â The School Board in an open session, but without holding a due-process hearing, terminated Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's complaint claimed a property interest in her employment contract entitled her to a hearing before her employment was terminated. She also alleged the termination was in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights because, earlier that fall, she had signed a state-court petition calling for a grand jury investigation into the activities of Board members, and she had complained to friends and family about the Board. 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 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.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner Cordell Nichols petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The motion alleged that newly discovered evidence revealed numerous instances of ineffective assistance of his counsel, both prior to trial and at sentencing -- specifically his counsel's failure to properly investigate and object to "Brady" violations. Petitioner's convictions were based on three separate traffic stop incidents dating from 1999 to 2002. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the record, the district court's order, Petitioner's application for a COA and his proposed opening brief. The Court concluded he was not entitled to relief on either of his claims. The Court concluded it did not have to analyze Petitioner's every challenge to the district court's "extensive orders." Rather, the Court went to "the ultimate issue--whether [Petitioner] has shown prejudice by the actions of counsel or that of the prosecutors. Like the district court, [the Tenth Circuit concluded] he failed to show prejudice on either claim." The Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

Defendant Steven Romero appealed his three year sentence for aggravated animal cruelty. In 2009, Defendant tied a rope around the neck of "Buddy," a dog belonging to a family in Delta, Colorado, and dragged him to death behind a pick-up truck on federal land. The United States Probation Office prepared a pre-sentence investigation report (PSR), indicating that while Defendant was in jail for killing Buddy and before pleading guilty, he made a series of telephone calls attempting to silence witnesses and procure false grand jury testimony. The PSR recounted Romeroâs ten prior felony convictions, poor physical health, mild mental retardation, amphetamine dependence, depression, and â[i]ntermittent [e]xplosive [d]isorder." The presumptive sentence for aggravated animal cruelty was 12-18 months, but that maximum could be doubled under certain circumstances. Upon review of the sentencing court's record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence when sentencing Defendant to 36-months' imprisonment. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

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.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Cooper was convicted by jury on one count of conspiracy to defraud, and multiple counts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering and engaging in transactions derived from unlawful activity. Defendant filed several motions with the district court including motions for a judgment of acquittal, a post-verdict motion for a new trial, and a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied them all. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of those motions. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found Defendant failed to prove that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's denials of Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, for a new trial, and to suppress evidence, and affirmed Defendant's convictions.

Pro se prisoner Petitioner David Chitwood sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for habeas relief. In 1993, Petitioner was temporarily transferred from the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections to Colorado to stand trial in Colorado on burglary and forgery charges. Petitioner was sentenced to twenty-year concurrent prison terms for burglary and eight years on the forgery count. The Colorado sentences were to run consecutive to his Missouri sentences. Petitioner was then returned to Missouri and remained there until 1998 when he was transferred to serve his Colorado sentences. In 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to felony menacing in Colorado and was sentenced to a six year term to run consecutive to his earlier Colorado sentence. Petitioner sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit when his application for COA was denied in the district court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant did not exhaust his state remedies and did not argue that exhaustion would have been futile. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that "no reasonable jurist could debate that the district court erred in dismissing" Petitioner's COA application. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner's application for a COA and dismissed his appeal.

A federal jury found Defendant Barry Keck guilty on eight counts relating to a drug and money-laundering conspiracy in Wyoming. Defendant appealed his conviction, contending that the jury's verdict rested on insufficient evidence and improper evidentiary decisions by the district court. He also contended that the court erred in applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found no legal basis to reverse Defendant's conviction, and no error in the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines. The Court affirmed the district court's decision and Defendant's conviction.