Opinion ID: 3062064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Analysis of Personal Jurisdiction

Text: Defendant Lappin presented evidence, contrary to plaintiff’s allegations but uncontroverted by any competent evidence from plaintiff, that he was not directly responsible for authorizing the recommended treatment. That responsibility was delegated to the Assistant Director of BOP’s Health Services Division. R. Vol. 1 at 353. Defendant Lappin did not make specific decisions regarding medical treatment. Id. And he was not aware of plaintiff’s condition or the request made for its treatment. Id. at 354. Echoing the emphasized statement in the passage from our earlier decision quoted above, Lappin confirmed that “[a]ny decisions [he] made which may have affected the provision of medical services within the [BOP] have been of general applicability to all [BOP] facilities.” Id. at 353. The magistrate judge began her analysis of personal jurisdiction by noting that defendant Lappin did not have the kind of continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state to support the exercise of “general” personal jurisdiction -4- over him. See generally Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining and contrasting general and specific personal jurisdiction). We agree. Defendant does not reside in, work in, or have direct control over the operation of any prison facility in the State of Colorado. The focus of the personal jurisdiction question here has been, rather, on the court’s “specific” personal jurisdiction over defendant Lappin, particularly whether he “purposefully directed” activities at the forum state that gave rise to the plaintiff’s injury. See Arocho, 367 F. App’x at 949-50 (following analysis of this condition for specific jurisdiction in Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1071-72 (10th Cir. 2008)). Based on the evidence cited above, the magistrate judge concluded plaintiff could not satisfy this condition for specific personal jurisdiction. The magistrate judge also went on to conclude, alternatively, that defendant Lappin had made a compelling case that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him would, in any event, offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Arocho, 367 F. App’x at 950 (discussing this final limitation on the exercise of personal jurisdiction). Plaintiff was properly warned that he had to submit specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation or risk forfeiture of appellate review, see R. Vol. 1 at 683, pursuant to this court’s firm waiver rule, see, e.g., Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). He did file a timely objection, see -5- R. Vol. 1 at 688-90, but it was very general and did not advance particularized challenges to the analysis of personal jurisdiction; any challenge in this regard was limited to a general reference to this court’s earlier reversal of the dismissal on the pleadings, id. at 690. Defendants insist that we apply our waiver rule and summarily affirm the dismissal in favor of defendant Lappin. We decline to do so. Our waiver rule includes an interest-of-justice exception, which takes into account “a pro se litigant’s effort to comply [and] the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure to comply.” Duffield, 545 F.3d at 1238 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s objection explained that his legal and personal property was confiscated on March 29, 2011, and had still not been returned a month later when he had to prepare and file the objection. R. Vol. 1 at 688-89. Defendants do not contest these facts. 1 It is not difficult to see how this would undermine the pro se plaintiff’s effort to advance particularized challenges to a lengthy and legally complicated recommendation. Under the circumstances, we elect not to rest our disposition on waiver. 2 1 Defendants argue that we should not consider the confiscation of plaintiff’s legal materials as an excuse for his failure to frame more specific objections, because his complaints about the confiscation incident seem to refer, rather, to his inability to file an adequate response to the summary judgment motion. But, while plaintiff’s pro se argumentation is at times unclear, the facts he states are not. The confiscation occurred after he responded to the summary judgment motion but before the time for filing his objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, so only the latter would have been affected. 2 We also decline defendants’ suggestion that we summarily affirm on the (continued...) -6- Returning to the merits of the personal jurisdiction issue, we fully agree with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that there is no evidence defendant Lappin purposefully directed actions at the forum state to cause plaintiff’s alleged injury. As already alluded to above, his only potential connection with plaintiff’s case relates to decisions of general applicability he has made affecting the provision of medical services within BOP facilities countrywide. As indicated in our decision on the prior appeal, that is not enough to show that he purposefully directed his relevant actions at the forum state. See Arocho, 367 F. App’x at 949-50 (applying test for personal jurisdiction distilled from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), derived in Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1072).