Rachel Killebrew v. Daniel Davis Gary Thompson John Doe

Citations: 41 F.3d 1516; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38974; 1994 WL 664923Docket: 94-6015

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; November 27, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached or furnished during oral argument. Rachel Killebrew, the plaintiff-appellant, appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants Daniel Davis and Gary Thompson on her civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. Summary judgment is only appropriate when no genuine material facts are in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, favoring the plaintiff's perspective.

Killebrew, an African American, alleged that the defendants interfered with her Master's degree pursuit due to her race. Although she presented evidence of challenges encountered, she did not provide proof linking these issues to racial discrimination. Thus, the court affirmed the summary judgment, referencing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, which states that a failure to show essential elements of a case warrants summary judgment. Killebrew also claimed a denial of equal protection based on unequal treatment compared to similarly situated students but did not present evidence of differential treatment, leading to the conclusion that summary judgment was justified on this claim as well.

Killebrew argued that the defendants' summary judgment motion was insufficient; however, she did not raise this objection in the district court, and the appellate court typically does not consider issues introduced for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the burden of proof at trial did not rest with the defendants, so they were not required to provide extensive evidence to support their motion. Lastly, Killebrew contended that the court erred by granting summary judgment before she completed discovery, but the timeline indicates that the defendants acted promptly after her complaint was filed.

Upon receiving the defendants' summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought legal counsel and retained her attorney after the response deadline. Her attorney promptly filed for an extension and noted insufficient discovery opportunity. The district court granted the extension on July 21, 1993, staying the response timeline and scheduling a conference. Following the conference on August 10, 1993, the court set a discovery deadline for December 15, 1993, and a response deadline for October 15, 1993, which was later extended to October 19, 1993. The plaintiff submitted her response on that date. The court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on December 22, 1993, after the discovery deadline had lapsed. The plaintiff did not request an extension for discovery or seek permission to file a supplemental response post-discovery. It was noted that completion of discovery is not a prerequisite for summary judgment, and the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to indicate her need for further discovery to oppose the summary judgment. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma was affirmed. The plaintiff's motion to stay her appeal and her counsel's motion to withdraw were both deemed moot. The order is not considered binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, and additional documents submitted by the plaintiff for appeal consideration were not accepted since they were not presented to the district court. The case was decided based on the briefs without oral argument.