Filed: Oct. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 7, 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _ FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 16-5004 (D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00511-GKF-PJC) DEPUTY DUSTIN DUBOISE, (N.D. Okla.) Grievance Coordinator; SGT. ERNEST MENDENHALL; DEPUTY ROBERTSON; D.O. ROBERSON; STANLEY GLANZ, Defendants-Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before T Y M K O V I C H , Chief Judge, B A C H A R A C H and M O R I T Z, C
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 7, 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _ FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 16-5004 (D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00511-GKF-PJC) DEPUTY DUSTIN DUBOISE, (N.D. Okla.) Grievance Coordinator; SGT. ERNEST MENDENHALL; DEPUTY ROBERTSON; D.O. ROBERSON; STANLEY GLANZ, Defendants-Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before T Y M K O V I C H , Chief Judge, B A C H A R A C H and M O R I T Z, Ci..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 7, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 16-5004
(D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00511-GKF-PJC)
DEPUTY DUSTIN DUBOISE, (N.D. Okla.)
Grievance Coordinator; SGT.
ERNEST MENDENHALL;
DEPUTY ROBERTSON; D.O.
ROBERSON; STANLEY GLANZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before T Y M K O V I C H , Chief Judge, B A C H A R A C H and M O R I T Z,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Franklin Smith was a pretrial detainee at the Tulsa County Jail.
When booked into the jail, Mr. Smith failed to follow the directions
given by two officers. The officers thought that Mr. Smith was drunk and
*
Oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we
have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent
except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
refusing to cooperate. Mr. Smith denies that he was drunk or
uncooperative; he states that a mental disability caused him to think that
he was in a restaurant in New Mexico. When Mr. Smith failed to follow
the officers’ directions, the two officers grabbed Mr. Smith’s arm behind
his back and directed him where he was to go.
Mr. Smith sued five officers (Sheriff Stanley Glanz, Sergeant
Ernest Mendenhall, Deputy Dustin DuBoise, Detention Officer Roberson,
and Deputy Robertson); and he wanted to sue two more officers (Corporal
Miller and Officer Cantrell), claiming the use of excessive force and a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the district court
granted dismissal or summary judgment to the five officers being sued
and denied Mr. Smith leave to amend the complaint to add Corporal
Miller and Officer Cantrell as defendants. In this appeal, Mr. Smith
challenges these rulings, arguing that he created triable fact issues. 1 We
affirm.
1. Appellate Jurisdiction
One defendant argues that we lack appellate jurisdiction because
the district court did not enter a final order. We disagree. The district
1
The district court dismissed claims against two of the officers
(Detention Officer Roberson and Deputy Robertson) based on a failure to
effect timely service. Mr. Smith does not challenge this ruling.
-2-
court stated that its order was final, terminated the action, and entered
judgment for the defendants. These steps rendered the order final,
creating appellate jurisdiction. See Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d
444, 450 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[I]f a district court expressly and
unambiguously dismisses a plaintiff’s entire action, that order is final
and appealable.”).
2. Claims of Excessive Force Against Sheriff Glanz
The district court dismissed the excessive force claims against
Sheriff Glanz based on a lack of personal participation and failure to
state a valid claim. We agree with the rulings based on the district
court’s thorough explanation.
3. Claims of Excessive Force Against Officers Mendenhall and
DuBoise
Officers Mendenhall and DuBoise obtained summary judgment on
the excessive force claims. We agree with this ruling. As the district
court explained, most of the episode was captured on videotape, which
showed the use of minimal force to take Mr. Smith where he was ordered
to go. Whether Mr. Smith was drunk or mentally disabled, the videotape
shows that the officers took reasonable steps to carry out the booking
process. See Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1125 (10th Cir. 2007)
-3-
(en banc). As a result, we agree with the district court’s explanation for
the grant of summary judgment on the excessive force claims.
4. C l a i m s A g a i n s t S h e r i f f G l a n z, O f f i c e r M e n d e n h a l l , a n d O f f i c e r
DuBoise Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Mr. Smith also alleged two violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The first involved use of excessive force during the
booking; the second involved Sheriff Glanz’s housing of Mr. Smith with
inmates who were “psychologically normal.” Am. Compl. at 4. On
appeal, Mr. Smith argues that Officers Mendenhall and DuBoise
committed discrimination and violated the statute by confusing a mental
abnormality with uncooperative behavior.
In order to plead a valid claim, Mr. Smith had to allege facts
showing that the jailers had failed to reasonably accommodate a
disability during the booking process, inflicting greater injury or
indignity to Mr. Smith than to others being booked into the jail. See
Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 1999).
No such factual allegations appeared in the amended complaint. As
a result, the district court dismissed all claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. We cannot fault the district court for failing to entertain
factual allegations that had not appeared in the amended complaint.
-4-
5. Recusal
In an earlier case, Mr. Smith filed a judicial misconduct complaint
against the same district court judge who presided over this case. Based
on this complaint, Mr. Smith asked the judge to recuse or to order a
change in venue. The judge declined to recuse or change venue. These
rulings do not constitute error. See In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658-59 (7th
Cir. 2000).
6. Allegedly Missing Videotapes
Mr. Smith alleged that the defendants had failed to produce some of
the footage that was videotaped during the booking. The district court
rejected the argument, concluding that the additional footage probably
did not exist and would not have affected the outcome. This ruling fell
within the district court’s discretion. See El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile
Co., 825 F.3d 1161, 1162 (10th Cir. 2016).
7. Leave to Amend
Mr. Smith acknowledged in district court that he had misidentified
the two officers involved in the initial skirmish. Based on the
misidentification, Mr. Smith sought leave to amend his complaint to add
Corporal Miller and Officer Cantrell as defendants. The district court
denied leave to amend, reasoning that amendment would be futile
because the award of summary judgment was based on the absence of a
-5-
legal violation, not Mr. Smith’s misidentification of the alleged culprits.
The district court correctly determined that leave to amend would be
futile. See Jones v. Norton, 809 F.3d 564, 579 (10th Cir. 2015), petition
for cert. filed (U.S. Jul. 13, 2016) (No. 16-72).
8. New Arguments in Mr. Smith’s Reply Briefs
In his reply briefs, Mr. Smith also argues that (1) he was
improperly housed with violent gang members and (2) the district court
erroneously denied a request to
! subpoena a videotape and a record of the assault and
! grant a temporary injunction.
These arguments did not appear in Mr. Smith’s opening brief; thus, we
decline to consider these arguments. See Garcia v. LeMaster, 439 F.3d
1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2006) (declining to consider issues raised for the
first time in a reply brief).
9. Disposition
We affirm the district court’s rulings
! dismissing claims of excessive force against Sheriff Glanz,
! addressing the Americans with Disabilities Act,
! awarding summary judgment to Officer Mendenhall and
Officer DuBoise on the claims of excessive force, and
-6-
! declining to recuse or change venue, refusing to take action
for failure to produce footage from the videotapes, and
denying leave to amend the complaint.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
-7-
