Callahan v United Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas

Callahan and two other police officers sued United and several other police officers alleging they were arrested without probable cause during a sting operation. United and the defendant officers moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motions including those based on qualified immunity. The panel reversed in part and dismissed in part. As to the defendant officers, it held that the law on probable cause in a multi-suspect situation is at best uncertain given United States Supreme Court precedent allowing arrest when three possible suspects were found with drugs in car and the defendant officers here could not be said to be on notice that arresting all members of SWAT team when serval had been observed stealing items in a house violate the 4th Amendment. United’s appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as denial of summary judgment is not reviewable.  

United States v Mulay

Mulay and the government filed a joint motion to vacate Mulay’s sentence. The district court denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealablity. The panel remanded the case ordering the district court to specify any constitutional issues raised by the case.

Vigil v Colvin

Vigil appealed the denial of application for disability benefits. The panel affirmed. It held the administrative law judge had a persuasive basis, namely the inconsistency between the examining doctor’s factual findings and his conclusions about Vigil’s ability to stand and walk, to give the doctor’s opinions lesser weight. It also held there was not error to use certain unskilled labor jobs in the analysis as Vigil had moderate cognitive deficits which were adequately accounted for in the analysis.

United States v Wetzel-sanders

Wetzel-sanders and the government filed a joint motion to vacate her sentence. The district court denied the motion. The panel vacated the order and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction holding that Wetzel-Sanders had already filed petitions under 28 USC 2255, had not received permission to file the current motion and in any event lacked a basis to file the new motion under the provisions of 2255(h).