Brown v. Shoe
703 F. App'x 665
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wesley R. Wolf Brown, a convicted felon with a prior adjudication as a “mental defective,” applied to purchase a handgun; Colorado denied the transfer and Becky Shoe (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) upheld the denial.
- Colorado denies firearm transfers that would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); state statute implements federal disqualifications and permits judicial relief for certain mental-health disqualifications under specified procedures.
- Brown sued Shoe alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and a Colorado statute, seeking an order requiring approval of the firearm transfer (he did not seek damages).
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint; Brown appealed and sought certification of state-law questions to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal claims for lack of standing (injury not redressable) and remanded with instructions that dismissals be without prejudice; it remanded the state-law claims with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / redressability of federal claims | Brown: Colorado’s treatment unlawfully distinguishes non-violent felons from mentally ill persons; a judicial ruling could allow him to obtain the firearm | Shoe/Colorado: Even if Colorado law were changed, federal law (and state enforcement of §922(g)) bars felons from possessing firearms, so relief would not enable purchase | No standing — injury not redressable; federal claims dismissed |
| Whether state-law claims should be retained or dismissed | Brown: Seeks declaration/relief under Colorado law and asked to certify questions to Colorado Supreme Court | Shoe/Colorado: Federal court should decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims resolved | Decline supplemental jurisdiction; remand with instructions to dismiss state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction |
| Motion to certify state-law questions to Colorado Supreme Court | Brown: Certification appropriate to resolve state-law issues | Respondents: Certification unnecessary because federal court should dismiss state claims | Denied — certification would serve little purpose after federal claims rejected |
| Form of dismissal (with or without prejudice) | Brown: dismissal should be without prejudice given jurisdictional defects | Respondents: (implicitly) dismissal may dispose of case | Court instructs dismissals should be without prejudice (lack of standing/supplemental jurisdiction grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- PeTA v. Rasmussen, 298 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2002) (Article III standing is jurisdictional and may be raised sua sponte)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (plaintiff bears burden to show standing for each type of relief sought)
- Estate of Reat v. Rodriguez, 824 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2016) (court should decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are rejected before trial)
- Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2010) (same principle on declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice)
- VR Acquisitions, LLC v. Wasatch County, 853 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2017) (dismissal without prejudice when declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014) (dismissals for failure to state a claim are presumptively with prejudice)
- Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)