Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Atlantic Richfield Company v. NL Industries, et al.
This case involves the timeliness of a suit to recoup expenses for an environmental cleanup action. Generally, a party can try to recoup expenses through an action for either cost recovery or contribution. The two actions carry different periods of limitations.
According to the opinion, timeliness here turns on the characterization of the action and selection of a suitable limitations period. If the claim involved cost recovery, the action would have been untimely. But the claim fits the statutory requirements for a contribution action.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals would ordinarily apply the limitations period for contribution actions, according to the opinion. But that period specifies four kinds of claims, and none of those claims exist here. So it needed to select the more suitable statute of limitations.
Between the two possibilities in front of the court, the closer fit is the statute of limitations for contribution actions because the claim involved contribution rather than cost recovery. Under that period of limitations, the 10th Circuit found the action timely.
The 10th Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to the NL entities and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Griffith v. El Paso County, Colorado, et al.
Darlene Griffith, a transgender woman, filed a civil rights lawsuit concerning her pretrial confinement at the El Paso County Jail in Colorado.
The district court dismissed Griffith’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Griffith sought reversal. She specifically appealed the dismissal of her constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that remand is required, but only on some of Griffith’s claims.
The 10th Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings on Griffith’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Sheriff Bill Elder in his official capacity and Fourth Amendment abusive search claim against Deputy Andrew Mustapick.
The 10th Circuit also vacated the district court’s order dismissing Griffith’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because those claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and that ruling is unchallenged on appeal. It otherwise affirmed.
Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented.
In Tymkovich’s view, binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent prescribes rational basis review to these sorts of correctional policies. In the Supreme Court Case Turney v. Safley, the high court held “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Tymkovich wrote that, properly applied, Turner forecloses Griffith’s equal protection claim and her Fourth Amendment claim directed at the jail’s allegedly unconstitutional search policy.
He would also dismiss her Fourth Amendment claim directed at Mustapick because she has failed to identify law clearly establishing that abusive language can transform an otherwise constitutional search into an unconstitutional one.
Because he would affirm dismissal of Griffith’s complaint in its entirety, he respectfully dissented.
Estate of Jason Waterhouse, et al. v. Direzza
Jason Waterhouse was high on methamphetamine and acting destructively in his sister’s home, according to the opinion. By the time Lakewood Police Department officers arrived, he had barricaded himself in the basement.
Officers tried for more than an hour to get him to come out, but, rather than cooperating, Waterhouse started a fire. Seven officers went down to the basement to try and find the source of the fire and extricate Waterhouse. They saw him shoving a large stick through the wall before slamming the bedroom door shut. It quickly became apparent that the fire and the smoke were more serious than the officers had anticipated, and they were ordered to evacuate.
Assigned to provide lethal cover, Marc Direzza was one of the last two officers in the basement. As several others were still hurrying up the stairs, Waterhouse burst out of the bedroom, heading toward the two remaining officers, who were six to 10 feet from the door.
The other officer fired his beanbag shotgun, hitting Waterhouse. Direzza fired his pistol three times in rapid succession. One of the bullets struck Waterhouse in the back, killing him.
Waterhouse’s estate brought a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court granted Direzza summary judgment.
The estate appealed. The issue on appeal is whether Direzza is entitled to qualified immunity. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that he is. Under these dangerous circumstances, his use of lethal force complied with the Fourth Amendment. Even if Waterhouse wasn’t carrying a weapon when he was short, Direzza could reasonably believe that he posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself or other officers.
Given the fire and smoke, a wrestling match in the basement could have been fatal. In addition, Direzza didn’t violate clearly established law. No controlling precedent forbids officers from using lethal force in such circumstances.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
New Hampshire Insurance Company, et al. v. TSK Ski & Golf, et al.
This appeal presents a dispute over liability insurance coverage. The issues arise from exclusions in the insurance policies that foreclose both providing a defense and indemnity coverage if the insureds are sued for defamatory or disparaging statements when the insureds have knowledge of the falsity of the statements.
Following Colorado precedent, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that even though the claims against the insureds did not require proof that the alleged false statements were made knowingly, the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions preclude defense coverage because the underlying complaint alleged that the insureds knowingly published the false statements.
And the 10th Circuit held that the exclusions preclude indemnity coverage because the evidence at the underlying trial established that the insureds knowingly published the false statements.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims.
Koel v. Citizens Medical Center, et al.
Ricky Koel sought emergency care and treatment at Citizens Medical Center, a hospital in Colby, Kansas, after sustaining serious injuries to his right eye. Citizens evaluated Koel and eventually released him with medication and instructions to see an ophthalmologist the following morning. He visited the ophthalmologist and received emergency surgery the next day, but eventually lost vision in his injured eye.
Koel asserted state law medical malpractice claims against Citizens and several of its medical staff. He also brought a federal claim against Citizens under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The district court dismissed Koel’s EMTALA claim, concluding that Citizens didn’t violate the requirements under the law.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and it concluded that EMTALA requires only that a covered hospital provide a medical screening examination according to its capability and stabilize emergency medical conditions that it has actual knowledge of.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
This case arises from the fatal shooting of Amelia Baca, a 75-year-old mentally diminished woman in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The estate of Baca filed a complaint alleging that the police officer who shot her acted with excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The district court granted the officer summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the estate hadn’t raised a genuine dispute of material fact about the officer’s claim that he perceived that Baca presented an immediate danger of serious bodily harm to himself and others.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate, a reasonable jury could find a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation, according to the opinion. The court also concluded that such a violation would have been clearly established under controlling law on the date of the shooting.
The 10th Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.