United States Tenth Circuit

In a Due Process challenge to an ordinance banning pit bulls, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part, where Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective relief because they did not show a credible threat of future prosecution, but reversed in part, where Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the pit bull ban was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/27/2009
• Published 05/27/2009

Judges

• LUCERO, Circuit Judge., Before TACHA, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.  LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Steven S. Rosenthal (Alan K. Palmer;  Karen R. Breslin, Progressive Law Center, LLC;  and Michael F. Swick, American Kennel Club with him on the briefs), Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for the Plaintiffs-Appellants., James W. Hubbell, Kelly, Garnsey, Hubbell & Lass LLC, Denver, CO, and Ethan Carson Eddy and Jessica Culpepper, of Counsel, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C., filed an Amicus Curiae brief for the Humane Society of the United States in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants., Megan A. Senatori, DeWitt Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison, WI, filed an Amicus Curiae brief for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants., Debora M. Bresch, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New York, New York, filed an Amicus Curiae brief for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael J. Joyce (John M. Eckhardt and Stuart L. Shapiro with him on the briefs), Office of the City Attorney, Denver, CO, for the Defendants-Appellees.