Donahue v. Brownback


FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 9, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TONI R. DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of minor child, DCD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-3237 (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-02055-CM-JPO) GOVERNOR SAM BROWNBACK, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Pro se litigant Toni R. Donahue brought suit against then-Kansas-Governor Sam Brownback in his official and individual capacities, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, The Rehabilitation Act of 1974, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court dismissed the action for various reasons, including that Eleventh Amendment Immunity barred the * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. official-capacity claims for monetary damages against Brownback. Donahue appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background Donahue’s claims against Brownback were prompted by the treatment her minor child, DCD, received at school. According to Donahue’s amended complaint, DCD “served ‘shock time’ in a 5x4 isolation prison cell, located inside his autism classroom,” at least six times in a six-month period, which resulted in “approximately 65-75 moderate [physical] injuries,” and behavioral and emotional problems. R. at 30. Donahue alleged that because Brownback signed the Freedom from Unsafe Restraint and Seclusion Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-6151 to 72-6158, authorizing the use of such isolation cells in special-needs classrooms, he was liable for DCD’s confinement in the cell, which violated DCD’s civil rights, the Rehabilitation Act, and the IDEA. She also asserted that Brownback was liable for failing to train and supervise social workers at the Department of Children and Families (DCF), failing to implement policy changes at the DCF, and failing to train police officers in local police departments. She sought monetary damages for herself and DCD, and injunctive relief. Brownback filed a motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which the district court granted. Donahue appeals. II. Discussion Affording Donahue’s opening appellate brief the liberal construction it is entitled to, Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008), we find only 2 one argument on a dispositive issue that is adequately presented—whether the district court erred in concluding that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the official-capacity § 1983 claims for monetary damages against Brownback.1 She has therefore waived appellate review of the remainder of the district court’s rulings on Brownback’s motion to dismiss. See State Farm Fire ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals