Puller v. Greco

── Puller v. Greco ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1028 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court TREVOR PULLER; DEANDRE HUTCHINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No. 25-1028 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00843-GPG-NRN) NICHOLAS GRECO; NICODEMUS (D. Colo.) WERTH, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ In a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Colorado law, Trevor Puller and Deandre Hutchinson (collectively, Plaintiffs) asserted Denver police officers Nicholas Greco and Nicodemus Werth (collectively, Defendants) subjected them to false arrest and malicious prosecution. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), awarding Defendants qualified immunity. Plaintiffs 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.  Appellate Case: 25-1028 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2 appeal the dismissal of their § 1983 claims. 1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 2 I We take the facts from Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and from a High Activity Location Observation (HALO) surveillance video in the record. 3 Around 2 a.m. on April 4, 2021, people were walking and congregating on the sidewalks in the lower downtown area of Denver, Colorado. Plaintiffs, both Black men in their mid-20s, were in Mr. Puller’s car. 1 Plaintiffs make no arguments regarding their state-law claims. They therefore have waived any challenge to the dismissal of those claims. See Tran v. Trs. of State Colls. in Colo., 355 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. A dismissal of claims (as opposed to dismissal of an action) and a dismissal without prejudice may indicate the decision is not final and appealable under § 1291. See Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 450-51 (10th Cir. 2006). But the district court noted Plaintiffs already had filed three versions of the complaint and declined to allow another opportunity to amend. See id. at 450-51 (“[W[here a district court dismissal expressly denies the plaintiff leave to amend, . . . that dismissal (even if it is ambiguous or nominally of the complaint) is for practical purposes of the entire action and therefore final.”). And it entered a separate j