FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 5, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARK GAMBRILL,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF

WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS

CITY, KANSAS; RICK ARMSTRONG,

Chief of Police, in his official and

individual capacities; JAMES BROWN,

Assistant Chief of Police, in his official

and individual capacities; GREG

LAWSON, in his official and individual

capacities, Captain; CURTIS

NICHOLSON, in his official and

individual capacities, Captain; KEVIN

STEELE, Assistant Chief of Police, in

his official and individual capacities;

MICHAEL YORK, in his official and

individual capacities, Captain; TERRY

ZEIGLER, Assistant Chief of Police, in

his official and individual capacities,

 

Defendants - Appellants.

 

No. 14-3229

(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-02699-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

TRUNG HOANG,

 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF

WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS

CITY, KANSAS; RICK ARMSTRONG,

Chief of Police, in his official and

individual capacities; JAMES BROWN,

Assistant Chief of Police, in his official

No. 14-3233

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02407-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

Appellate Case: 14-3234 Document: 01019566429 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 1 
and individual capacities; GREG

LAWSON, Captain, in his official and

individual capacities; CURTIS

NICHOLSON, Captain, in his official

and individual capacities; KEVIN

STEELE, Assistant Chief of Police, in

his official and individual capacities;

MICHAEL YORK, Captain, in his

official and individual capacities;

TERRY ZEIGLER, Assistant Chief of

Police, in his official and individual

capacities,

 

Defendants - Appellants.

 

JEFFERY GARDNER,

 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF

WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS

CITY, KANSAS; RICK ARMSTRONG,

Chief of Police, in his official and

individual capacities; JAMES BROWN,

Assistant Chief of Police, in his official

and individual capacities; GREG

LAWSON, Captain, in his official and

individual capacities; CURTIS

NICHOLSON, Captain, in his official

and individual capacities; KEVIN

STEELE, Assistant Chief of Police, in

his official and individual capacities;

MICHAEL YORK, Captain, in his

official and individual capacities;

TERRY ZEIGLER, Assistant Chief of

Police, in his official and individual

capacities,

 

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 14-3234

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02406-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

2

Appellate Case: 14-3234 Document: 01019566429 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 2 
 

MICHAEL MILLS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF

WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS

CITY, KANSAS; RICK ARMSTRONG,

Chief of Police, in his official and

individual capacities; JAMES BROWN,

Assistant Chief of Police, in his official

and individual capacities; GREG

LAWSON, Captain, in his official and

individual capacities; CURTIS

NICHOLSON, Captain, in his official

and individual capacities; KEVIN

STEELE, Assistant Chief of Police, in

his official and individual capacities;

MICHAEL YORK, Captain, in his

official and individual capacities;

TERRY ZEIGLER, Assistant Chief of

Police, in his official and individual

capacities,

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 14-3235

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02408-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the

determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). These cases are 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.

3

Appellate Case: 14-3234 Document: 01019566429 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 3 
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

After another panel of this court issued Callahan v. Unified Government of

Wyandotte County, 806 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir. 2015), we asked the parties to

present supplemental briefs on the question whether that decision controls the

disposition of these cases. In their submission, the appellants argue that Callahan

controls, noting that these cases and that one arise from the same facts and

involve the same legal claims. The appellees do not dispute the appellants’

position but encourage us to revisit the merits of Callahan because it was wrongly

decided. The appellees’ invitation, of course, is one we must decline, for a later

panel of this court is bound by the decision of an earlier panel. See, e.g., LeFever

v. C.I.R., 100 F.3d 778, 787 (10th Cir. 1996). Finding Callahan’s guidance

controlling, we follow its direction. And so we reverse the district court’s denial

of qualified immunity to the individual defendants and dismiss the Unified

Government’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See Callahan, 806 F.3d at 1024.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

 Circuit Judge

4

Appellate Case: 14-3234 Document: 01019566429 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 4