Hampton v. Root9B Technologies
July 31
Root9B is a company providing cybersecurity products and services. The plaintiff, David Hampton, alleged that two misleading statements were released by root9B after they were bought by a larger company. He filed securities-fraud claims in a class-action lawsuit.
First, a letter was issued from the CEO and chairman of root9B, Joseph Grano Jr. It stated that root9B had proprietary hardware and software designed for new methods used by hackers. After that, root9B raised $11.5 million with three stock and option offerings.
Second, a press release came from root9B stating it had discovered and thwarted a planned hack by state-sponsored Russian hackers.
A reporter named Brian Krebs claimed there was little evidence that the Russian team in question was actually the ones behind the planned attack. This article and another are blamed by Hampton to cause root9B’s stock to drop from $2.51 a share to $1.02 by the end of the ordeal.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. The court agrees with the district court in that root9B’s claims to proprietary hardware were not disproven through one of the articles and omission of language from filings with the SEC. The court also agrees with the district court in that Hampton failed to show the attribution to a Russian hacking team was false or misleading.
M.A.K Investment Group v. City of Glendale
July 31
M.A.K. Investment Group had several properties in Glendale, Colorado. The city declared many of them “blighted” under state law, allowing them to use eminent domain to make the area for public use.
M.A.K. was never notified by that designation or the legal consequences of it. The blighted land determination started a seven-year window for the city to begin condemning proceedings on M.A.K.’s property. A 30-day window was also started with the declaration for M.A.K. to seek judicial review. Naturally, M.A.K. did not seek review.
M.A.K. argues that the Urban Renewal statute empowering the City to do this violated due process as it does not require property owners to be notified of the blight designation and the judicial review window.
The court held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to M.A.K. as it did not receive notice of the blight designation. However, the court states that due process did not require notification of the judicial review window.
Sayed v. Virginia
July 31
Hazhar Sayed was a prisoner in the Sterling Correctional Facility in Colorado. One day he was beaten and threatened by the defendants for filing a grievance against one of them.
Sayed claimed his First Amendment right of access to courts was violated as he was punished for filing a grievance. Also, Sayed said that his Eighth Amendment rights regarding cruel and unusual punishments were violated by the assault and because Lieutenant Page Virginia, who was present, did not stop the attack.
Defendants moved to dismiss the case based on qualified immunity and not because the complaint failed to allege violation of a law. The court determined that they forfeited such immunity when they did not give any analysis to whether the complaint from Sayed — for the beating — alleged a violation of his rights.
The court continued to say even if the defense had maintained their immunity; the complaint gave plausible allegations of violations of Sayed’s rights, disqualifying immunity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the district court that the case cannot be dismissed based on immunity.
Ford v. Jefferson County Sheriff
July 31
Plaintiff Brandon Maurice Ford was a detainee in the Jefferson County Jail in Golden when he filed a pro se section 1983 complaint alleging that the Sheriff’s Office violated his civil rights by denying him a halal/kosher diet. With his complaint, Ford submitted a deficient motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The next day, a magistrate judge noted the motion’s deficiencies and directed Ford to cure those within 30 days. Ford did not do so but instead filed a slew of non-responsive pleadings. After the 30-day period had passed, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and granted Ford’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
Mason v. Zorilla
Aug. 1
Plaintiff J. Freddrick Mason filed a pro se 42 U.S. Code, section 1983 complaint alleging the violation of his religious rights in relation to his arrest, competency hearing and plea of guilty to state charges of second-degree assault.
The magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as uncognizable under section 1983 and as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, which prevent a state prisoner from bringing a section 1983 action where a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of an existing criminal conviction or sentence.
Mason did not file a timely response to the show cause order. The district court then dismissed the complaint for several reasons, including the Heck bar, the fact that his request for injunctive relief was not cognizable in a section 1983 action, and Younger abstention, which prohibits federal courts from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary or special circumstances.
On appeal, the plaintiff did not address most of the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. His only argument on any of the district court’s procedural grounds for dismissal is that the court should have found extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception to Younger abstention.
The 10th Circuit review of the plaintiff’s brief, the record on appeal, and the pertinent cases led it to conclude the case did not present the type of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant an exception to Younger
The court affirmed the dismissal of the case.
Sandoval v. Raemisch
Aug. 1
William Frank Sandoval, a Colorado state prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S. Code, section 2254 application for habeas relief, arguing that his constitutional right to effective assistance was violated because his trial counsel failed to object to the prosecution’s statement during a bench conference indicating that it intended to elicit evidence related to Sandoval’s prior conviction for vehicular assault, and elicited testimony from him on direct examination about the original charge and the sentence imposed in that case.
The district court granted Sandoval a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The 10th Circuit, in its opinion, wrote that to establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, Sandoval had to show both that his trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.
The CCA did not contravene or unreasonably apply that standard by concluding that Sandoval failed to show a substantial likelihood of a different result had his prior sentence not been mentioned at his trial.
The court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief as to Sandoval’s ineffective assistance claims.
Fletcher v. Schwartz
Aug. 2
John Patrick Fletcher, a Colorado prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint against several prison officials alleging violations of his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court, in its opinion, wrote that all of his federal claims stemmed from allegations that a legal assistant in the prison library violated his First Amendment rights. On screening, the district court dismissed his federal claims as legally frivolous under 28 U.S. Code, section 1915 and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The 10th Circuit found that the facts fletcher alleged did not set forth violations of the constitutional rights that he asserted and affirmed the district court’s judgment.