Brian Oblad v. Leon Butler; Roy Bickel; Fnu Smith; Fnu Okarma

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
BRIAN OBLAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEON BUTLER; ROY BICKEL;
FNU SMITH; FNU OKARMA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-4112
(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00102-JNP)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This action grew out of Mr. Brian Oblad’s prior imprisonment.
During his imprisonment, Mr. Oblad allegedly
 languished in pain from an impacted wisdom tooth and
 lost a bid for parole because a prison psychologist and a mental
health worker had lied to the parole board.
* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have
decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 10, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-4112 Document: 010110559666 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Mr. Oblad sued in his third amended complaint for violation of the
Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court
dismissed these causes of action, reasoning that the defendants enjoyed
qualified immunity and Mr. Oblad had failed to state a valid claim.
Though Mr. Oblad appeals, he does not say what he thinks the
district court did wrong in dismissing his constitutional and disability
claims. The omission is fatal. See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784
F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (stating that every appellant must state
how the district court erred).
Mr. Oblad instead claims defamation and argues for the first time
that qualified immunity is an unconstitutional doctrine. But Mr. Oblad did
not claim defamation in the third amended complaint, so we cannot disturb
the dismissal for this newly asserted claim. Firstenberg v. City of Santa
Fe, 696 F.3d 1018, 1024 (10th Cir. 2012). And in district court, he never
challenged the constitutionality of qualified immunity. So he forfeited this
argument. Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir.
2011). Mr. Oblad could seek plain-error review, but he did not do so. So
we decline to consider this new challenge to qualified immunity. See id.
Appellate Case: 20-4112 Document: 010110559666 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Affirmed. 1
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1 Though we affirm the dismissal, we grant leave to Mr. Oblad to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee. (He still must pay the filing fee,
but he need not prepay.)
Appellate Case: 20-4112 Document: 010110559666 Date Filed: 08/10/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --