Sause v. Bauer
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10828
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Officers Stevens and Lindsey visited Sause’s apartment investigating a noise complaint; Sause initially refused entry but later consented.
- While inside, officers mocked Sause for displaying a Constitution, threatened public humiliation (said she would be on COPS), and told her she was "going to jail."
- Sause knelt to pray; officers ordered her to stop praying and to get up; they later cited her for disorderly conduct and interfering with law enforcement. Officers repeatedly asked to see her tattoos/scars; she exposed mastectomy scars, which she says was humiliating.
- Sause sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment violations (retaliation/interference with religious exercise) and sought monetary and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss and invoked qualified immunity.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and found amendment futile; Sause appealed.
- The Tenth Circuit assumed a First Amendment violation for purposes of appeal but held defendants entitled to qualified immunity for monetary claims and found Sause lacked standing for injunctive relief (dismissed those claims without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers violated a clearly established First Amendment right by ordering Sause to stop praying and by mocking/harassing her during a lawful visit | Sause: Right to pray in home and to be free from retaliation for First Amendment conduct; officers’ actions violated that clearly established right | Officers: Even if conduct occurred, no controlling precedent makes that specific conduct "clearly established" unlawful; qualified immunity bars money damages | Court: Assuming a constitutional violation, the law was not clearly established in the specific factual context; qualified immunity applies to monetary claims |
| Whether qualified immunity bars injunctive relief | Sause: Qualified immunity doesn't shield officers from prospective/injunctive relief | Officers: (Implicit) injunctive relief not appropriate; qualified immunity issue for damages only | Court: Qualified immunity does not shield injunctive claims, but Sause lacks standing to seek injunctive relief; those claims must be dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend and dismissing with prejudice | Sause: Complaint was close to stating a claim and amendment should have been allowed | Defendants: Dismissal with prejudice justified because claims fail as a matter of law (qualified immunity) and plaintiff offered no amendment strategy | Court: Dismissal with prejudice of monetary claims was proper because amendment would be futile given qualified immunity; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellate court must consider standing sua sponte for injunctive claims | Sause: Did not meaningfully contest standing on appeal | Defendants: Did not challenge standing on appeal | Held: Court has independent obligation to assess Article III standing; Sause lacked a real and immediate threat of future injury and therefore lacked standing for equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law requires that reasonable officers would know conduct is unlawful)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (warning against defining clearly established law at high level of generality)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to similar facts)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (pro se Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals ordinarily without prejudice; courts should explain deficiencies)