Gambrill v. Unified Govt of Wyandotte, No. 14-3229 (10th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFebruary 5, 2016 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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, No. 14-3229 (D.C. No. 2:11-CV-02699-KHV) (D. Kan.) Defendants - Appellants. 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.) 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. 2 No. 14-3234 (D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02406-KHV) (D. Kan.) 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, No. 14-3235 (D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02408-KHV) (D. Kan.) Defendants - Appellants. 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 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

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.