572 F. App'x 635
10th Cir.2014Background
- On July 13, 2009 Officer Walker stopped Rick Wilson for a stop-sign violation and prepared three citations; Walker called for backup and Sergeant Taylor arrived.
- Officers say Wilson became argumentative, refused an order to exit, physically resisted removal, knocked Walker to the ground, and was arrested for battery on an officer and resisting; Wilson disputes these facts and later produced a belt-tape and deposition transcript after summary judgment.
- Wilson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth, Fourteenth, and First Amendment violations; the officers moved for summary judgment.
- Wilson filed a Rule 56(f) (now 56(d)) affidavit seeking discovery (officers’ depositions, belt-tape transcription, other materials); discovery proceeded and he took depositions, but he delayed submitting his own affidavit and other materials in response to the summary-judgment motion.
- About seven months after the Rule 56(f) request, the district court ruled both on the Rule 56(f) request and the summary-judgment motion, concluding Wilson had had sufficient opportunity for discovery and granting summary judgment to the officers; Wilson’s later motion to supplement the record was denied.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion on the Rule 56(d) request, that probable cause supported the arrest (no Fourth/Fourteenth violation), and that officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the claimed retaliatory-arrest First Amendment theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by ruling on the summary-judgment motion without first granting more time under Rule 56(d)? | Wilson argued his Rule 56(f) affidavit and discovery needs warranted more time to supplement the record before a ruling. | Officers argued discovery occurred and Wilson had opportunity but failed to timely present his evidence. | No abuse of discretion; discovery was largely completed and Wilson failed to timely submit his own affidavit/evidence. |
| Was Wilson’s arrest a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure (no probable cause) because the traffic stop had ended before officers ordered him out? | Wilson argued the stop was effectively completed (citations prepared) so ordering him out and arresting him was unreasonable. | Officers argued they were still completing the stop (citations not signed) and may order occupants out; Wilson resisted and assaulted an officer, giving probable cause. | Arrest supported by probable cause; under Maryland v. Wilson and Mimms officers could order exit and had cause to arrest for resisting/battery. |
| Does Wilson have a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on state law release procedures? | Wilson contended a state statute created a liberty interest requiring release after signing citations. | Officers noted Wilson had not signed citations and was arrested for resisting/assault, not for the traffic violation. | Fourteenth Amendment claim fails; facts show arrest for resisting and battery, not a deprivation under the cited state process. |
| Can Wilson maintain a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim despite probable cause? | Wilson argued his complaints about past policing were protected speech and arrest was retaliatory. | Officers argued probable cause existed; alternatively, they asserted qualified immunity because law was not clearly established that a retaliatory arrest supported by probable cause violates the First Amendment. | Court affirmed on qualified immunity ground: in July 2009 it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate the First Amendment as a retaliatory-arrest claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patty Precision v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 742 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1984) (district court must exercise discretion on Rule 56(f) requests and failing to do so can require remand)
- Alpine Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) (no prejudice where discovery sought by Rule 56(f) was completed yet party failed to use new discovery to oppose summary judgment)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (officers may order passengers/occupants out of a vehicle during a traffic stop)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officer may order driver out of vehicle during lawful stop)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory-prosecution claim requires proof of lack of probable cause)
- DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990) (earlier Tenth Circuit decision on retaliatory-arrest claims and probable cause)
- Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2011) (held Hartman did not extend to retaliatory arrest—later reviewed by Supreme Court)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (Supreme Court reversed Howards on qualified immunity grounds and observed Hartman created uncertainty about application to retaliatory arrests)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework permitting courts to decide prongs in either order)
- Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2002) (district court must independently show movant meets summary-judgment burden before granting as unopposed)
- Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment standards; nonmovant must set forth specific facts creating genuine issues)