Ulusemre v. Blue Valley Board of Education

── Ulusemre v. Blue Valley Board of Education ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3100 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/09/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 9, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court TOLGA ULUSEMRE, Plaintiff Counter Defendant - Appellant, v. No. 25-3100 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-04095-TC-ADM) MICHELLE DOMBROSKY; MELISSA (D. Kan.) HILLMAN; MARK SCHMIDT; SUZANNE MARTIN; MARY BROWN; MEAGHAN GRABER; KRISTIN KELLERMAN; STEPHANIE CLELAND; LILY BORDONI; TONYA MERRIGAN; DAN CARNEY; AMY FARTHING; ELIZABETH NEWELL; MAURY HERNANDEZ; CADE CHACE; KELLY NORTHUP; PEGGY SALTS; POLLY BLAIR; KELLY BECK; CLIFFORD COHEN; CRISTA GRIMWOOD; DIANA DURKIN; ANGELA GUPTA, Defendants - Appellees, BLUE VALLEY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant Counterclaimant - Appellee, and JOANN WOLTMAN, Defendant. _________________________________  Appellate Case: 25-3100 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/09/2026 Page: 2 ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction in a civil rights case. Pro se appellant Tolga Ulusemre has sued, among other defendants, 18 current and former employees of the Blue Valley School District (collectively, “Blue Valley”). He alleges that Blue Valley falsely accused his two sons of making criminal threats—aiming to drive them out of the school district—in retaliation for his outspoken advocacy for the boys’ educational needs. While his suit was underway, Ulusemre moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Blue Valley from restricting his access to Liberty View Elementary School (“LVE”) property. The district court denied Ulusemre’s motion after a hearing, concluding he hadn’t satisfied the required preliminary injunction factors. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we affirm, but on an alternate ground—the motion before the district court was clearly moot. Further, we decline to consider Ulusemre’s suggestion that judicial bias affected the motion’s outcome. * 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. 2  Appellate Case: 25-3100 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/09/2026 Page: 3 BACKGROUND The operative complaint alleges that Ulusemre and his wife pursued numerous avenues—emails, parent-teacher conferences, social media posts, and state grievance procedures—to voice concerns about how their sons, A.U. and D.U., were being treated in school. In retaliation for the parents’ criticisms, Blue Valley staff conspired to “eject[] the family from sc