Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02188/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tim Ashley
Appellee
Gerry Billy
Appellant
Frank Blackburn
Appellee
Curry County Board of County Commissioners
Appellee
Ben McDaniel
Appellee
Lance Pyle
Appellee
Robert Sandoval
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

GERRY BILLY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS, a political subdivision existing under the laws of the

State of New Mexico; LANCE PYLE,

individually and in his official capacity

as County Manager for the Curry

County Board of County

Commissioners; ROBERT

SANDOVAL, individually; FRANK

BLACKBURN, individually; BEN

McDANIEL, individually; TIM

ASHLEY, individually, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-2188

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00032-MCA-LAM)

(D. New Mexico)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

* The parties do not request oral argument, and the Court has determined that

oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a)(2); 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.

Appellate Case: 14-2188 Document: 01019449966 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 1 
This appeal grew out of Mr. Gerry Billy’s employment as a jail

administrator. This employment was based on a one-year contract, which would

expire on January 31, 2013. If Mr. Billy remained an employee throughout the

one-year term, he would enjoy the possibility of two annual extensions. But, Mr.

Billy did not make it that long; he was fired on January 8, 2013, 23 days before

his contract was to expire. Mr. Billy sued the Board of Commissioners and four

individuals, claiming denial of equal protection, tortious interference with

contract, retaliatory discharge, deprivation of due process, violation of the First

Amendment, breach of contract, and violation of the state’s Whistleblower

Protection Act.

In two thorough opinions, the district court dismissed some of the claims

and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims that

otherwise would have remained. Having terminated all of the federal claims, the

court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over one remaining state-law

claim (violation of the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act). Mr. Billy appeals

the orders granting dismissal and summary judgment. We affirm.

I. Dismissal

 The district court dismissed the claims for denial of equal protection,

tortious interference with contract, and retaliatory discharge. In doing so, the

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2188 Document: 01019449966 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 2 
court correctly decided the arguments raised by Mr. Billy in his response brief.

On these issues, we agree with the district court for the reasons stated in its order.

On appeal, however, Mr. Billy makes two new arguments:

1. The district court erroneously concluded that Mr. Pyle (the County

Manager) was acting in the course of his employment.

2. Two of the defendants could not obtain immunity under state law

because they had not been county commissioners between December

5, 2012, and January 1, 2013.

Mr. Billy did not present either of these arguments in district court. Because the

arguments were not presented there, we consider the arguments “forfeited.” See

EEOC v. Beverage Distribs. Co., 780 F.3d 1018, 1023 n.4 (10th Cir. 2015).

Forfeited arguments are generally reviewable under the plain-error standard. See

id. But Mr. Billy has not urged plain-error review. As a result, we decline to

consider these newly presented arguments. See id.

II. Summary Judgment

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the

claims involving breach of contract, deprivation of due process, and violation of

the First Amendment. For the arguments presented in district court on these

claims, we agree with the district court’s thorough analysis. 

On appeal, however, Mr. Billy has again presented two new arguments: 

1. The Commission breached the contract by stating that there were

enough votes to put him under Mr. Pyle’s supervision.

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2188 Document: 01019449966 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 3 
2. Prior to Mr. Billy’s termination, Commissioner Sandoval made

stigmatizing statements that affected Mr. Billy’s ability to obtain

another job.

Mr. Billy failed to present either of these arguments in response to the

defendants’ summary judgment motion. As a result, we consider the arguments

“forfeited.” See EEOC v. Beverage Distribs. Co., 780 F.3d 1018, 1023 n.4 (10th

Cir. 2015). Because Mr. Billy has not asked us to review the new arguments

under the plain-error standard, we decline to consider them. See id.

III. Disposition

We affirm.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2188 Document: 01019449966 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 4