Loftis v. Eades, 688 F. App'x 511

On Jan. 2, 2009, Officer Eades stopped Embry Jay Loftis for a defective tail light; Loftis lacked a valid driver’s license and was arrested.
Eades searched Loftis’s truck before towing it and found a baggie testing positive for cocaine; booking search recovered over $400 in cash.
State charges (possession of cocaine, driving without a license, defective vehicle) were dismissed on Mar. 26, 2009.
Loftis sued Officers Eades and Wilhite under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for false reporting, unlawful search and seizure, and other constitutional violations; case was removed to federal court.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling (alternatively) that Loftis’s claims were time-barred, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities, and Loftis presented no evidence of a municipal policy or custom for official-capacity liability.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed based on Loftis’s failure to meaningfully challenge the district court’s alternate grounds (qualified immunity and lack of municipal-policy evidence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated constitutional rights (unlawful arrest/search)	Loftis contended arrest and reports were false and searches unconstitutional	Officers pointed to probable cause for arrest and lawful searches (inventory/booking)	Held for defendants: Loftis offered no evidence to rebut probable cause or unlawfulness of searches; waived further argument
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in individual capacities	Loftis argued constitutional violations occurred	Defendants argued qualified immunity because no violation of clearly established right	Held for defendants: district court’s qualified immunity conclusion not meaningfully challenged and thus affirmed/waived
Whether official-capacity (municipal) liability exists under § 1983	Loftis alleged city liability through officers’ actions	Defendants argued plaintiff failed to show a policy or custom causing the injury	Held for defendants: Loftis presented no evidence of a municipal policy/custom and did not challenge district court’s finding
Whether appellant preserved challenges to alternate grounds (statute of limitations vs. merits)	Loftis attempted broad attack but provided no record support	Defendants relied on district court’s alternate rulings (qualified immunity, municipal-liability)	Held: Appellant failed to challenge alternate grounds adequately; Tenth Circuit affirms without addressing statute of limitations

Puller v. Baca, 781 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity burden and two-prong inquiry)
Starkey ex rel. A.B. v. Boulder Cty. Soc. Servs., 569 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2009) (appellate affirmance where alternate grounds not challenged)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules; courts will not construct arguments)
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2015) (municipal § 1983 liability requires policy or custom)
McDonald v. Wise, 769 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2014) (official-capacity claims target the employer/municipality)