Vreeland v. Wren
702 F. App'x 676
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Delmart Vreeland, a Colorado state prisoner, purchased an electronic tablet through a vendor contracted with CDOC and used it to store legal materials; prison officials later seized the tablet and other property.
- Vreeland alleged § 1983 claims (access to courts, First Amendment retaliation, Fourth and Sixth Amendment violations) and various state-law claims (conversion, loss/destruction of property, false advertising, copyright/trademark claims, Colorado Consumer Protection Act).
- The district court screened and dismissed multiple claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and ordered Vreeland to amend repeatedly to correct pleading defects.
- After Vreeland filed an amended complaint, CDOC employees moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and asserted immunity defenses; two additional defendants were at risk of dismissal for lack of service.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal (including dismissal of official-capacity claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds); the district court adopted most recommendations, dismissed federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and dismissed those without prejudice.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, agreeing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was warranted and further concluding qualified immunity and the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) supported dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seizure of tablet plausibly infringed access-to-courts | Seizure prevented filing/new suits and impaired existing litigation; privileged communications were exposed | Pleading did not show actual prejudice or that seizure caused inability to file or loss of claims | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege actual injury to court access |
| Whether seizure constituted First Amendment retaliation | Seizure was retaliatory for filing lawsuits | Complaint lacks facts linking adverse action to protected conduct or showing causation/retaliatory intent | Dismissed: insufficient facts to state retaliation claim |
| Whether federal constitutional claims (Fourth, Sixth, due process, copyright/trademark, ex post facto) were sufficient | Vreeland alleged illegal seizure, privacy and privilege violations, and intellectual-property harms | Claims legally frivolous or conclusory and fail Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard | Dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim |
| Whether state-law claims and official-capacity claims survive (jurisdiction/immunity) | Seeks state-law damages and statutory claims against officers and vendor | Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits; CGIA bars liability absent willful/wanton conduct; district declined supplemental jurisdiction | District dismissed official-capacity and federal claims with prejudice; declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice; appellate court affirmed and also held qualified immunity and CGIA would support dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (plausibility standard applied in Tenth Circuit)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Leverington v. City of Colo. Springs, 643 F.3d 719 (10th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity framework)
- SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Black Hawk, Colo., 405 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2005) (appellate court may affirm on any supported ground)