Brown v. Eppler
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15963
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Brown, a Tulsa resident, was banned from MTTA buses for about 30 days after April 2007 incidents involving intoxication and disruptive conduct; later permanent ban issued after a May 2007 incident and arrest by Horvath; district court granted summary judgment to MTTA and employee defendants; Brown appealed and sought in forma pauperis; this court reversed on procedural due process but affirmed otherwise; issues center on property interest in MTTA access and PLRA applicability; the MTTA is a common carrier with published rules governing banability; remand requested for due process analysis and fee obligations under PLRA.
- District court treated MTTA rules as non-binding restraints on discretion; the panel held MTTA’s rules sufficiently constrain discretion to deny service, creating a protected property interest in continued access if Brown complies with rules.
- MTTA’s bans were tied to explicit policies prohibiting fighting, vulgar language, and disruptive behavior; Brown argued for entrenched entitlement to MTTA service; the court found the right to access service could be a property interest under due process.
- The panel remanded for determination of the remaining procedural details and for calculating any unpaid PLRA fees, since Brown was incarcerated at appeal time and the PLRA applies to such prisoners.
- Brown’s appeal sought sanctions and partial summary judgment on liability; the court affirmed those issues consistent with precedents after reversing the procedural due process ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown has a protected property interest in MTTA access | Brown has a legitimate entitlement via MTTA rules | MTTA may revoke access within reasonable, discretionary rules | Yes; MTTA rules create entitlement to service. |
| Whether the MTTA due process procedures were violated | Insufficient process accompanying deprivation | Provided procedures were adequate | Reversed on procedural due process claim; remanded for further due process analysis. |
| Whether PLRA applies given Brown was incarcerated at appeal | PLRA does not apply since filing occurred before imprisonment | PLRA applies to any prisoner filing an appeal in forma pauperis | PLRA applies; remand to determine fee obligations. |
| Scope of district court’s dismissal of remaining claims | Appeal should contest all adverse rulings | Limitations on issues sustain dismissal | Affirmed for remaining claims. |
| Financial obligations under PLRA on appeal | No initial or ongoing partial filing fees were paid | Fees owed per §1915(b) | Remanded to determine the outstanding fee amount and payment terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (mandatory constraints create protected interests)
- Grenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (parole rights as protected interests)
- Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (right to a particular decision reached by applying rules constitutes property)
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (deprivation of protected interest requires due process analysis before procedures)