Howards v. McLaughlin, No. 09-1201 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 18, 2012 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court STEVEN HOWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL MCLAUGHLIN, in his individual and official capacity; ADAM DANIELS, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellants. VIRGIL D. "GUS" REICHLE, JR., in his individual and official capacity; DAN DOYLE, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. ----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE STATES OF COLORADO, OKLAHOMA, UTAH, WYOMING, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND VERMONT, Amici Curiae. ___________________________ STEVEN HOWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-1201 (D.C. No. 1:06-CV-01964-CMA-CBS) (D. Colo.) v. No. 09-1202 (D.C. No. 1:06-CV-01964-CMA-CBS) (D.Colo.) VIRGIL D. "GUS" REICHLE, JR., in his individual and official capacity; DAN DOYLE, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellants, DANIEL MCLAUGHLIN, in his individual and official capacity; ADAM DANIELS, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. -----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amicus Curiae. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, SEYMOUR, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. ** * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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. ** After considering the Supreme Court s opinion remanding this case, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The causes are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. In Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2011), we reversed the district court s denial of qualified immunity as to all Secret Service Agents on Mr. Howards Fourth Amendment claims, id. at 1143. We also reversed the district court s denial of qualified immunity on Mr. Howards First Amendment claim as to Agents Daniels and McLaughlin, but affirmed such denial as to Agents Reichle and Doyle. Id. at 1149-50. The Supreme Court has now reversed our judgment, holding that Agents Reichle and Doyle also are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2097 (2012). Accordingly, all these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court s denial of qualified immunity as to these defendants and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of these defendants. Entered for the Court, Paul J. Kelly Circuit Judge -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
