Johnson v. Roberts , 410 F. App'x 104 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 22, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-3170
v. (D. Kansas)
DENNIS K. ROBERTS; THE BOARD (D.C. No. 2:09-CV-02664-JTM-DWB)
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MIAMI COUNTY, KANSAS; FRANK
W. KELLY, Sheriff of Miami County,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Chris Johnson appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Board of
County Commissioners of Miami County, Miami County Sheriff Frank W. Kelly,
and deputy jailer Dennis K. Roberts (collectively, Defendants) on his civil-rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the District
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
of Kansas ruled that Mr. Johnson, an inmate at the Miami County jail, had not
been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when deputy jailer Roberts tased
him and used other physical force during an incident in Mr. Johnson’s cell.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s opinion
thoroughly discusses why the evidence presented at summary judgment could not
support Mr. Johnson’s claim. We affirm for essentially the same reasons stated in
that opinion.
We add only a few words to clarify an issue and to correct two errors made
in Mr. Johnson’s briefs on appeal. First, Mr. Johnson argues on appeal that
Defendants violated both his Eighth Amendment rights and his due-process rights,
but he never indicates what difference, if any, there was between the two
violations. We assume that he is simply noting that the Eighth Amendment
applies to state conduct (as here) through the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 157 (2006).
If he means to argue something else, he has waived review of the issue by failing
to develop the argument. See Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 954 (10th Cir.
1992) (“[I]ssues designated for review are lost if they are not actually argued in
the party’s brief.”).
Second, Mr. Johnson repeatedly asserts in his briefs that it was not
necessary for him to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion with
evidence, but that his allegations alone can suffice. For this proposition, he relies
-2-
on Buchwald v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 159 F.3d 487 (10th
Cir. 1998), which states: “To survive summary judgment ‘when a defendant
raises the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show the law was clearly
established when the alleged violation occurred and must come forward with facts
or allegations sufficient to show the official violated the clearly established
law,’” id. at 496 (quoting V-1 Oil Co. v. Means, 94 F.3d 1420, 1422 (10th Cir.
1996) (brackets omitted; emphasis added).
But Mr. Johnson reads too much into the Buchwald language. That opinion
never states that a plaintiff’s allegations can substitute for evidence in response to
a summary-judgment motion. Buchwald is merely addressing the first hurdle that
a plaintiff must surmount in responding to a motion for summary judgment based
on qualified immunity. If the plaintiff does not make the showing required by
Buchwald, the claim must be dismissed. But if the plaintiff makes the showing,
the usual rules of summary-judgment practice still apply; and if the defendant
presents evidence that contradicts the plaintiff’s allegations, the plaintiff must
overcome a second hurdle—namely, responding with evidence, not just
allegations. It was unnecessary for Buchwald to address the plaintiff’s second
potential hurdle, because the plaintiff had not shown that clearly established law
had been violated on the facts and allegations she had presented. (In fact, it does
not appear that any relevant facts were disputed.). That the showing required by
Buchwald is only enough to bring the usual summary-judgment procedures into
-3-
play is alluded to in V-1 Oil Co., the opinion quoted by Buchwald. In the
sentence immediately after the language quoted by Buchwald, the V-1 Oil Co.
opinion explains: “Defendant bears the normal summary judgment burden of
showing no material facts that would defeat the qualified immunity defense
remain in dispute.” V-1 Oil Co., 94 F.3d 1420, 1422-23; see Powell v. Mikulecky,
891 F.2d 1454, 1457 (10th Cir. 1989) (“Only after plaintiff has shown a violation
of a clearly established right does the defendant assume the normal burden of a
movant for summary judgment of establishing that no material facts remain in
dispute that would defeat her or his claim of qualified immunity.”). And, of
course, when, as in the present case, “a motion for summary judgment is properly
made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or
denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must—by affidavits or as
otherwise provided in this rule—set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for
trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (2009). Thus, Mr. Johnson could not rely on his
mere allegations to defeat Defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Finally, Mr. Johnson’s appellate briefs repeatedly complain that he was
denied discovery that would have produced evidence helpful to his claim. To
preserve that argument, however, he needed to respond to the summary-judgment
motion with an affidavit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (relabeled as
Rule 56(d), effective December 1, 2010) showing that he needed discovery to
respond fully to the motion. He filed no such affidavit, so he cannot complain on
-4-
appeal that he was denied discovery. See Marquez v. Cable One, Inc., 463 F.3d
1118, 1120–21 (10th Cir. 2006).
We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-