Blackwell v. Strain
496 F. App'x 836
10th Cir.2012Background
- Curtis Blackwell, a black commercial truck driver, alleged at the Lordsburg, NM Port of Entry that he was stopped, detained, subjected to a heightened Level II inspection, and cited due to race.
- Officer Ben Strain conducted the Level II inspection, found an unopened bottle of gin and beer, and imposed a 24-hour out-of-service order plus a $250 penalty.
- Blackwell filed a civil-rights suit alleging equal-protection violations; Strain moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity.
- The district court denied summary judgment, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding discriminatory effect and purpose.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Tenth Circuit analyzes de novo whether Strain violated clearly established rights, and reverses, granting summary judgment to Strain.
- The court holds Blackwell failed to show discriminatory purpose, and the evidence of discriminatory effect was not sufficient, so Strain is entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blackwell’s equal-protection claim survived qualified immunity. | Blackwell asserts discriminatory purpose and effect implied by Strain’s conduct. | Strain argues no constitutional violation and no racial animus; actions were not racially motivated and right was not clearly established. | No violation established; Strain entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether the statistical evidence shows discriminatory purpose or effect meeting the standard. | Statistics show disproportionate inspections and outcomes for Black truckers. | Statistics alone are insufficient without proper population, comparators, and context. | Statistics alone insufficient; no demonstrated discriminatory purpose or effect; qualified immunity preserved. |
| Whether other evidence of discrimination against Black drivers at the POE supports Blackwell’s claim against Strain. | Accounts of other Black drivers and witnesses indicate profiling and intrusive inspections by Strain. | Much of the evidence concerns POE as a whole or relies on non-specific or non-individualized claims against Strain. | Evidence regarding Black drivers other than Strain does not establish Strain’s discriminatory purpose. |
| Whether the district court properly credited inferences about Strain’s motive drawn from Blackwell's evidence on summary judgment. | District court inferred discriminatory purpose from Blackwell’s evidence; appellate de novo review should credit such inferences if supported by record. | No evidentiary support for those inferences; the court should not credit unsupported assumptions. | Court found no evidence to support discriminatory purpose; Strain entitled to qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2003) (evidence of discrimination may be shown by circumstantial or direct evidence but must support purpose)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) (statistical patterns can demonstrate discriminatory purpose when stark and unexplainable by nonracial factors)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (statistical disparities can imply discriminatory purpose in rare contexts)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (impact alone is not enough to prove purposeful discrimination without a showing of motive)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (discriminatory purpose must be a motivating factor; impact alone is insufficient)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (statistical comparisons must permit appropriate population and proportionality comparisons)