Frey v. Town of Jackson

• Decision Date: 26 July 2022
• Docket Number: s. 20-8000 & 20-8021
• Citation: 41 F.4th 1223
• Parties: William FREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. The TOWN OF JACKSON, WYOMING ; Teton County, Wyoming; the Jackson Hole Airport ; the Jackson Hole Airport Board; Nathan Karnes, in his individual capacity; James Whalen, in his individual capacity, and John Does, Defendants - Appellees. Institute for Justice; Cato Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Rutherford Institute, Amici Curiae.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

41 F.4th 1223

William FREY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. The TOWN OF JACKSON, WYOMING ; Teton County, Wyoming; the Jackson Hole Airport ; the Jackson Hole Airport Board; Nathan Karnes, in his individual capacity; James Whalen, in his individual capacity, and John Does, Defendants - Appellees.Institute for Justice; Cato Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Rutherford Institute, Amici Curiae.

Nos. 20-8000 & 20-8021

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED July 26, 2022

Marci Anne Crank Bramlet, Robinson Welch Bramlet LLC, Casper, Wyoming, (Seth "Turtle" Johnson, Slow and Steady Law Office, PLLC, Saratoga, Wyoming, and Benjamin N. White, Law Office of Benjamin N. White, LLC, Omaha, Nebraska, on the briefs) for Plaintiff-Appellant William Frey.

Jesse B. Naiman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming, (Theodore R. Racines, Deputy Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming, with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees Nathan Karnes and James Whalen in their individual capacities.

J. Kirk McGill, Godfrey Johnson, P.C., Englewood, Colorado, (Brett M. Godfrey, Godfrey Johnson, P.C., Englewood, Colorado, with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees the Jackson Hole Airport and the Jackson Hole Airport Board.

John D. Bowers, Bowers Law Firm, PC, Afton, Wyoming, briefed the case for Defendants-Appellees the Town of Jackson, Wyoming, Teton County, Wyoming, and Nathan Karnes and James Whalen in their official capacities.

Jeffrey Redfern, Institute for Justice, Arlington, Virginia, (Clark M. Neily III and Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, Devin Watkins and Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, and John W. Whitehead and Douglas R. McKusick, Rutherford Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia, with him on the brief) for Amici Curiae Institute for Justice, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rutherford Institute.

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

CARSON, Circuit Judge.

This litigation arose from a contentious encounter at the Jackson Hole Airport in Teton County, Wyoming. As Plaintiff William Frey proceeded through the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") checkpoint, the body scanner alerted TSA screeners to a potentially suspicious area on Plaintiff's person. When the security screeners informed Plaintiff that they would have to conduct a pat down, Plaintiff became agitated and repeatedly refused to cooperate. So the security screeners summoned a police officer, Defendant Nathan Karnes ("Karnes"), who arrested Plaintiff.

After being transported to the Teton County Jail for booking, Plaintiff continued his noncooperation, refusing to participate in the booking process and demanding that jail officials allow him to have an attorney present. Jail officials detained Plaintiff for about three hours before releasing him. Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging many violations of his rights. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, denied leave to file a second amended complaint, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, awarded attorney's fees to the Municipal Defendants, and sanctioned Plaintiff's attorneys. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that some of his claims should have survived dismissal, that the district court should have permitted him to add some of his new proposed claims in a second amended complaint, and that the district court should not have awarded any attorney's fees. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I.

Because this case comes to us at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, we take the facts from the amended complaint and assume their veracity. See Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir. 2011). In addition, when a plaintiff attaches a written document to his complaint as an exhibit, we consider it part of the complaint for all purposes, including in a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) ; Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 1991). Consideration of those documents does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment. See Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010) ; Wright & Miller, 5B Fed. Prac. & Pro. Civ. 3d § 1357 (Apr. 2021 update). Thus, Plaintiff's exhibits to his amended complaint inform our discussion of the facts, but we continue to view all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Brown, 662 F.3d at 1162.

Plaintiff lives in Connecticut but maintains a home near the Town of Jackson in Teton County, Wyoming. He usually makes at least two round trips between Connecticut and Jackson each year via the Jackson Hole Airport ("the Airport"), which the Jackson Hole Airport Board ("the Board") governs. In spring 2018, Plaintiff arrived at the Airport to travel home to Connecticut. He began the security screening process and entered the TSA's body scanner, still wearing his belt. Although screening employees saw that Plaintiff kept his belt on, they did not instruct him to remove it before entering the scanner or inform him that they would require further screening if he kept it on.

The body scanner alerted to Plaintiff's groin, upper-inner thigh, and outer thigh, so a screening employee informed Plaintiff that he would have to submit to a pat down of those areas, even though his belt likely caused the alert. Plaintiff refused to cooperate with a pat down and suggested that the screening employees allow him to remove his belt and try again. Though one screening employee suggested that this was viable, the employees determined that standard operating procedure required Plaintiff to submit to the pat down.¹

Screening employees told Plaintiff he could neither leave the airport nor board his flight unless he agreed. Plaintiff replied that he would not consent and that he believed a pat down without his consent would constitute sexual assault.

Because of Plaintiff's continued noncooperation, Officer Karnes, a Jackson police officer posted to the airport that day, came to the scene and told Plaintiff he must submit to the pat down. Plaintiff again refused and asked Karnes to rescan him or permit him to leave. Karnes denied both requests and informed Plaintiff that he would arrest Plaintiff if he continued to refuse the pat down. Plaintiff refused a final time, stating that he would "file a police complaint and ... start litigation if they try and do this."² Karnes, believing that Plaintiff's actions violated the Jackson Municipal Code, arrested Plaintiff.³ Incident to the arrest, Karnes searched Plaintiff, finding nothing, and then placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and led him to a holding area. On the way to the holding area, Karnes injured Plaintiff's wrist by use of a "wristlock."⁴ Plaintiff claims he did not provoke the wristlock. But Karnes's police-report narrative, attached to the amended complaint, states that on the way to the holding area, Plaintiff began resisting and twisting away from Karnes and that Karnes used a wristlock to regain control of Plaintiff.

Karnes then took Plaintiff to Teton County's jail. While in Karnes's vehicle on the way to the jail, Plaintiff requested to speak with an attorney, and Karnes denied that request. Plaintiff remained at the jail for about three hours total. During that time, he made several requests to speak with an attorney, which officers at the jail denied. Plaintiff claims that officers held him at the jail longer because he requested an attorney and that they told Plaintiff's spouse that was the cause for the delay. Officers kept Plaintiff in a "simple cell" for some time before Karnes and two others "conducted an interrogation" during which they "berated [him] about his behavior and his requests for a lawyer." Plaintiff interpreted this as retaliation for requesting an attorney and refusing to answer questions without one present.

Again, Karnes's police report tells a different, but not entirely contradictory, story. According to the report, "[o]nce at the jail, Plaintiff was extremely uncooperative." During the booking process, "he refused to answer questions, slammed his fists on the counter of the booking room, and demanded to speak to his lawyer." So, "[d]eputies then escorted [Plaintiff] to a cell until he was cooperative and agreed to complete the booking process." Karnes tried to explain and issue a citation for the municipal-code violation, but while he was "speaking with [Plaintiff,] [Plaintiff] continued to yell at and threaten litigation against the [d]eputies and [Karnes]." Eventually, Plaintiff calmed down, agreed to complete the booking process, cooperated in that process, and left the jail. Where necessary, we address the discrepancies between these accounts.

Plaintiff sued, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. He named as defendants Jackson, Teton County, the Airport, the Board, Karnes, Teton County Sheriff James Whalen, and John Does to include airport screening employees and jail deputies.⁵ On Defendants’ motions, the district court dismissed the complaint, disposing of some claims with prejudice and some without, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Relevant to this appeal, the district court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Karnes arising from the arrest, search, and use of force at the airport. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint but omitted any claims that the district court had dismissed with prejudice.

After Defendants again moved to dismiss, the district court dismissed the entire amended complaint with prejudice and denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend a second time. At issue from the amended complaint are (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Karnes related to the detention at the jail; (2) his municipal-liability claims against Jackson, the Airport, and the Board arising from Karnes's arrest,...