412 F. App'x 127
10th Cir.2011Background
- Durham, pro se Bivens plaintiff, inmate at ADX Florence, alleges deliberate indifference to ETS exposure.
- District court dismissed Lappin, Watts, Hershberger for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient Colorado contacts.
- Durham sought transfer to a district with jurisdiction; court denied transfer, stating it would substitute defendants and prejudice timing.
- Durham introduced regulations and expert testimony linking ETS to health harms and asserting defendants knew risks.
- District court found no objective evidence of unreasonably high ETS exposure and no decency-standard violation.
- On appeal, panel reviews jurisdictional and summary-judgment rulings de novo and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Lappin, Watts, and Hershberger. | Durham argued nationwide BOP site and contacts show Colorado purposeful availment. | Contacts were fortuitous or speculative and not purposeful. | No personal jurisdiction; district court affirmed. |
| Whether Durham's Eighth Amendment claim shows deliberate indifference to exposure to ETS. | Regulations and expert evidence prove health risks; defendants knew and were indifferent. | Exposure level not proven; no objective evidence of unreasonably high exposure. | No Eighth Amendment violation; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the transfer denial was an abuse of discretion. | Transfer to a forum with jurisdiction would be appropriate. | Transfer would not be in the interest of justice; improper justification otherwise. | No abuse; transfer denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (inmate must show exposure to unreasonably high ETS levels)
- Rusakiewicz v. Lowe, 556 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2009) (minimum contacts analysis for official defendants)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment; contact analysis for jurisdiction)
- Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (transfer decisions; factors governing discretion)
- Farmers Co. v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (conditions-of-confinement objective and subjective tests)
- Bartile Roofs, Inc. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 618 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for summary-judgment and jurisdiction rulings)