Koch v. City of Del City
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22095
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Koch, plaintiff, sued Officer Beech and Del City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force following a 2005 encounter at Koch's residence.
- An Oklahoma state court had appointed Gladys Lance’s niece as special guardian in Sept. 2005 due to Lance’s possible welfare concerns; Loar was authorized to locate Lance and prevent transfer of Lance’s property.
- Beech was told of a ‘pickup’ order for Lance and that Lance may be at Koch’s residence; Koch refused to disclose Lance’s location and told Beech to speak with her attorney.
- During the arrest for obstruction, a scuffle occurred and Koch alleges excessive force; Lance was later found in a nursing home in Choctaw.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Beech on the § 1983 claims, finding qualified immunity, and remanded state-law claims against Del City to state court; it also denied part of Koch’s motion to continue.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held it had jurisdiction and affirmed, concluding Beech was entitled to qualified immunity on Koch’s false-arrest and excessive-force claims, and upheld remand of state-law claims and the denial of the continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Beech's arrest was protected by qualified immunity | Koch contends no probable cause or clearly established right justified the arrest | Beech acted with arguable probable cause given the circumstances and information from shift lineup | Yes; Beech entitled to qualified immunity for false arrest |
| Whether Koch’s excessive-force claim survives summary judgment | Injury from handcuffing was non-minimal and actionable | Injuries were de minimis; force was reasonable under Graham factors | No; Koch failed to show a non-de minimis injury, so no excessive-force violation |
| Whether the district court properly remanded state-law claims to state court | Remand was improper if federal claims were resolved | Remand was proper after federal claims were resolved; court had discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction | Proper; remand affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Koch's motion to continue | Additional time was needed to complete medical treatment and damages evidence | No good cause shown for extended discovery; ample time remained for damages development | No abuse; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (remand after federal claims resolved gives final appealable order)
- Porter v. Williams, 436 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2006) (remand of state-law claims after federal claims resolved confers finality)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court 2001) (established framework for probable cause and seizures in arrests)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (Supreme Court 2004) (addressed compelled identification during a Terry stop; does not resolve broader right not to answer)
- Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023 (10th Cir. 1994) (no clearly established First Amendment right to refuse to answer during a Terry stop)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (Supreme Court 2003) ( Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies only in criminal case contexts)
- Tom v. Voida, 963 F.2d 952 (7th Cir. 1992) (unclear whether citizens may refuse to answer during investigation; open issue)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (arguable probable cause doctrine under qualified immunity)