John Kilman v. TYLER S. BROWN, Sheriff, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department, in his official capacity

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JOHN KILMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TYLER S. BROWN, Sheriff, Arapahoe
County Sheriff’s Department, in his official
capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-1135
(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-01419-RBJ-MEH)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
John Kilman appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101–12213, and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district
court’s judgment.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 13, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1135 Document: 010110464117 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
BACKGROUND
Kilman’s son is an inmate at the Arapahoe County Detention Center
(“Detention Center”). Inmates at the Detention Center can communicate with visitors
using audio-visual equipment. The Detention Center monitors these
communications. Only attorneys may have unmonitored, in-person visits with
inmates. Claiming that it was difficult for him to communicate effectively using the
audio-visual equipment, Kilman requested an unmonitored, in-person visit with his
son. The Detention Center denied Kilman’s request.
Kilman sued, alleging the denial of his request for private, in-person visits
with his son violated the ADA and his rights to equal protection under the
Constitution. Kilman named as a defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff Tyler S.
Brown. Because he named Sheriff Brown in his official capacity, his suit functioned
as a suit against Arapahoe County itself. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166
(1985) (“[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as
a suit against the entity.”).
The county moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion, it
submitted video evidence of Kilman using its audio-visual equipment to
communicate with his son without apparent difficulty. In response to Kilman’s equal
protection claim, the county argued there was a rational basis for treating attorney
and non-attorney visitors differently, in that unmonitored contact visits pose security
risks to the facility. See Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984) (“That there
Appellate Case: 20-1135 Document: 010110464117 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
is a valid, rational connection between a ban on contact visits and internal security of
a detention facility is too obvious to warrant extended discussion.”).
The district court granted the motion for summary judgment for two reasons.
First, the court concluded that the video evidence showed Kilman had no difficulty
communicating with his son using the existing equipment. Because Kilman did not
come forward with any evidence showing that the videos submitted were atypical, the
court concluded the facts were beyond genuine dispute. Second, the court concluded
as a matter of law that Kilman was not entitled to private, in-person, unmonitored
communications with his son. Because Kilman is not an attorney, his
communications with his son do not merit the same legal protections as attorney-
client communications. The district court therefore dismissed Kilman’s claims, and
Kilman now appeals.
DISCUSSION
While we construe pro se arguments liberally, we “cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005). To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must adequately brief it,
beyond a generalized assertion of error, and include citations to supporting authority.
Id. at 841. We do not consider “conclusory allegations with no citations to the record
or any legal authority for support.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his submissions on appeal, Kilman identifies two issues but does not
adequately brief either one with any citations to the record or supporting authority.
Appellate Case: 20-1135 Document: 010110464117 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
He also requests leave to further amend his complaint, but he does not explain why
such amendment would be warranted or how it would address the factual and legal
deficiencies that caused the district court to dismiss his claims. Having
independently reviewed the summary judgment record, including the video evidence
the district court relied upon, we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in
the district court’s well-reasoned order dated March 5, 2020. See R. at 290–301.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1135 Document: 010110464117 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --