Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/355816399/Brown-v-Shoe-10th-Cir-2017
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 05:52:19
Document Index: 201381871

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 18', '§ 922', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 24']

speichernBrown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017) für später speichern
201 Ansichten6 Seiten
Awais Shahid CV
BECKY SHOE, Supervisor, InstaCheck Unit, Colorado Bureau of Investigation,
No. 16-1227 (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02730-MEH) (D. Colo.)
This suit grew out of Mr. Wesley R. Wolf Brown’s effort to buy a
relying on Mr. Brown’s felony convictions and his prior adjudication as a
“mental defective.” Mr. Brown sued Ms. Shoe, alleging violations of the
* We do not believe that oral argument would be helpful. As a result, we are deciding the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and Tenth Cir. R. 32.1(A).
convictions from possessing guns. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 18-12-108. Under federal law, mentally ill individuals generally fall
under the same prohibition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). But one material
1 The district court assumed that Mr. Brown had sued Ms. Shoe in both her official and individual capacities, stating that the amended complaint had been silent on whether Mr. Brown was suing Ms. Shoe in her official capacity or her individual capacity. We note that the complaint states that Mr. Brown has sued Ms. Shoe “in her official capacity as Supervisor of the InstaCheck Unit.” R. at 75.
2 The district court did not state whether the dismissal was without prejudice. On the federal claims against Ms. Shoe in her personal capacity, the dismissal is presumptively considered to be with prejudice. See Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292, 1299 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Dismissals for failure to state a claim are presumptively with prejudice because they fully dispose of the case.”).
guns upon a court’s finding, among other things, that the purchases do not
threaten public safety. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-5-142.5(5)(a)(1); see also
id. § 13-5-142.5(1) (“The purpose of this section is to set forth a judicial
(g)(4), as permitted by the federal ‘NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007’ (Pub.L. 110-180, sec. 105).”).
“Standing is a jurisdictional issue, and we are obligated to raise the issue
sua sponte to ensure that there is an Article III case or controversy.” PeTA,
1202 (10th Cir. 2002). Mr. Brown “bears the burden of showing that he has
standing for each type of relief sought.” Summers v. Earth Island Institute,
Mr. Brown’s injury would not be redressed by a favorable judicial
 he is a convicted felon and
 federal law prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms.
Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-424(3)(a) (“The bureau shall deny a transfer of a
.” (emphasis added)). Thus, even if Mr. Brown prevails here,
3 He does not seek damages.
Brown’s alleged injury, denial of the right to purchase a firearm, is not
Reat v. Rodriguez, 824 F.3d 960, 967 (10th Cir. 2016), cert denied,
, 137 S. Ct. 1434 (2017); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1229-
4 Mr. Brown obtained his felony convictions in California, and he does not suggest that he would be eligible under California law for restoration of his rights to possess a firearm.
5 In district court, Mr. Brown also argued that the state mental-health records were inaccurate. But in his opening appeal brief, he does not argue that the district court erred in failing to order correction of his mental- health information. See Plaintiff’s Reply Br. at 3 (acknowledging that Mr. Brown “failed to address his Mental Health in his [Opening] Brief”). We therefore decline to consider whether the district court should have ordered correction of the information. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief are waived).
We remand with instructions to (1) dismiss Mr. Brown’s claims
Mr. Brown’s motion for certification of the state-law claims.
Dokumente ähnlich wie Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
api-78464113
TheNaziRootsOfTheBrusselsEu.pdf
Andie Seoyoung Choi
Design_for_Production_of_Propylene.pdf
Soledad Cañezo, Substituted by William Cañezo and Victoriano Cañezo vs. Concepcion Rojas
Deonte Carraway - Criminal Complaint
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs Sorongon and Fong
11282019 CORPO LAW cases
api-280225987
Flowchart Start Triage