Precedents Cited
1) Appellate waiver and issue preservation
The court invoked Platt v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 960 F.3d 1264, 1271-72 (10th Cir. 2020),
for the proposition that issues not adequately raised and argued on appeal are treated as waived.
This was decisive because Plaintiffs challenged only two points (stigma-plus pleading and qualified immunity) while leaving untouched
other independent dismissal rationales. Under Platt, unchallenged bases support affirmance without reaching the merits.
2) Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards and the record required for review
The panel reiterated the de novo standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals from
Spinelli v. Coherus Biosciences, Inc., 167 F.4th 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2026),
and the plausibility requirement of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
It also referenced Brown v. City of Tulsa, 124 F.4th 1251, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 2025),
noting that appellate review is usually confined to “the four corners of the complaint.”
That doctrinal point drove a practical one: because the complaint is the key document under review in a 12(b)(6) appeal,
failing to include it in the appendix undermines the court’s ability to adjudicate the issues. The court relied on the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure and Tenth Circuit rules (including 10th Cir. R. 10.4 and 30.1; Fed. R. App. P. 30; Fed. R. App. P. 28)
to hold it “need not remedy” an inadequate appendix and may decline to consider issues lacking record support—here, going further to say
the omission constituted an independent ground for affirmance.
3) “Stigma-plus” procedural due process framework
For the governing standard, the court cited Al-Turki v. Tomsic, 926 F.3d 610, 614, 617 (10th Cir. 2019),
and traced the requirement of a reputational “stigma” plus a legally recognized “plus” to
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976).
The cited language emphasizes that reputational injury alone is not actionable as a federal procedural due process violation;
there must be a change in legal status—i.e., a right or status recognized by law is “distinctly altered or extinguished.”
4) Qualified immunity and the “clearly established” inquiry
The qualified-immunity framework came from Ellis v. Salt Lake City Corp., 147 F.4th 1206, 1219, 1228-29 (10th Cir. 2025),
stressing that the right must be “beyond debate” and defined in the specific context, not at a high level of generality.
The court also cited Surat v. Klamser, 52 F.4th 1261, 1271 (10th Cir. 2022),
for the discretion to resolve qualified immunity on either prong first—here, the panel chose the “clearly established” prong.
5) Cases Plaintiffs relied on—and why they did not establish the right asserted
The opinion referenced several decisions Plaintiffs cited as allegedly supporting their theory but found them inapposite to the
precise asserted “plus” (loss of private contracts/business opportunities):
-
Cypress Ins. Co. v. Clark, 144 F.3d 1435, 1437-38 (11th Cir. 1998) (reputational harm alone insufficient).
-
Greenwood v. N.Y., Off. of Mental Health, 163 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) (loss of clinical staff privileges at a state hospital—closer to state-conferred status).
-
Cooper v. Dupnik, 924 F.2d 1520, 1532-34 (9th Cir. 1991), rev'd en banc on other grounds, 963 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1992)
(even where defamation allegedly led to loss of employment/residence, it did not clearly establish the specific right necessary to overcome qualified immunity).
6) Contrary authority rejecting “private opportunity” stigma-plus theories
The panel emphasized that existing precedent runs against Plaintiffs’ approach, citing:
-
Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 886 F.2d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 1989)
(loss of potential employment opportunities is “too intangible” to constitute deprivation of a liberty or property interest).
-
URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 631 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2011)
(no deprivation where injuries derive from private contracts between private parties entailing private obligations).
Finally, to underscore the qualified-immunity defect in Plaintiffs’ cited authorities, the panel relied on
Segler v. City of Detroit, No. 23-1897, 2024 WL 5135735, at *4 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2024),
for the proposition that failure to identify any case adopting the specific stigma-plus linkage—state defamation as “stigma”
with third-party private action as the “plus”—is fatal to defeating qualified immunity.
Legal Reasoning
1) Layered affirmance: waiver, record default, and merits
The opinion is structured as a layered affirmance. First, waiver narrowed what remained reviewable.
Second, even as to what remained, the panel indicated it could affirm because Plaintiffs failed to provide the operative complaint,
a core document in a 12(b)(6) appeal. Third, the panel nonetheless addressed qualified immunity to show that, even overlooking those defects,
Plaintiffs’ remaining federal theory failed on clearly established law.
2) Stigma-plus requires a state-linked “plus” that changes legal status, not merely market consequences
The panel accepted the baseline doctrine that reputational harm by itself is not a procedural due process deprivation.
Under Al-Turki and Paul v. Davis, the “plus” must be a distinct alteration or extinguishment of a legal right/status.
Plaintiffs’ theory attempted to treat lost private contracts as the “plus.” But the panel concluded that—at least for qualified-immunity purposes—
Plaintiffs could not show that such a theory is recognized, much less clearly established.
3) Qualified immunity turns on specificity
Applying Ellis v. Salt Lake City Corp., the court framed the dispositive inquiry as whether it was clearly established
that this specific kind of stigma-plus injury (defamation by a state actor leading to private counterparties terminating contracts)
constitutes a due-process deprivation of a protected property interest. Because Plaintiffs could not identify precedent adopting that specific linkage,
and because cited authority tended to reject “private opportunity” theories, the panel held Unruh was entitled to qualified immunity
without deciding definitively whether a constitutional violation occurred.