Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01188/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01188-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RODGER D. IVES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FIL!TID 

United St.ates ~-1r\: oi Appeals 

Tm.oth ei:-~nlt, 

FEB 2 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

MONTEZUMA COUNTY, COLORADO; ) 

JAMES R. AIKEN; and JOHN GLAZNER, ) 

) 

No. 90-1188 

(D.C. No. 89-C-353) 

(District of Colorado) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT! 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

The appellant, Rodger o. Ives, filed a prose complaint 

against Montezuma County, Colorado; James Aiken, a county judge; 

and John Glazner, the county sheriff. He asserted claims under 42 

u.s.c. S 1983 (1) for malicious prosecution by defendants Glazner 

and Aiken, (2) for conspiracy by all defendants, and (3) for the 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1188 Document: 010110103811 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
alleged policy and custom of Montezuma County to maliciously prosecute "Constitutionalists." The district court granted defendant 

Aiken's motion to dismiss based on absolute judicial immunity. 

The district court also entered summary judgment in favor of the 

county and defendant Glazner, concluding that plaintiff had failed 

to state a claim against them. Finally, the district court denied 

Mr. Ives' motions for a continuance to permit further discovery 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), and for sanctions against defendant's 

counsel under Rule 11. Mr. Ives now appeals the district court's 

order. 

We review the dismissal of the complaint against defendant 

Aiken de novo, accepting all allegations at face value and construing them in the light most favorable to the appellant. Meade 

v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988); Morgan v. City of 

Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). We also recognize 

that prose complaints are held to "less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Meade, 841 F.2d at 1526. 

After reviewing the pleadings and the record, we hold that 

the district court correctly determined that absolute immunity 

applies in this case, and therefore affirm the district court's 

dismissal of the complaint against defendant Aiken for substantially the reasons set out in the district court order. 

We review a summary judgment order applying the same standard 

as the district court. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1188 Document: 010110103811 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2 
848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). We have, accordingly, 

"examine[d] the record to determine if any genuine issue of material fact was in dispute" and "if the substantive law was correctly applied." Id. at 143. However, "the mere existence of 

some alleged factual dispute •.• will not defeat an otherwise 

properly supported motion for sunonary judgment. . " Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 447 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in 

original). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude 

the entry of sunonary judgment. Factual disputes that are 

irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Id. at 248. 

Upon review of the analysis and authorities relied on in the 

district court opinion, we affirm the district court's grant of 

defendants Glazner and Montezuma County's motion for sunonary judgment for substantially the reasons set out in the district court 

order. In so doing we note that plaintiff did sue Mr. Glazner in 

both his individual and official capacities. However, Mr. Glazner 

is not liable in either capacity absent an affirmative link 

between the alleged constitutional violation and his participation, control or failure to supervise. See McKay v. Hammock, 730 

F.2d 1367, 1374 (10th Cir. 1984) (en bane). We agree with the 

district court that plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue on this 

requirement. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1188 Document: 010110103811 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 3 
' 

Finally, we hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Mr. Ives' motions under Rules 11 and 56(f). 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the 

district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1188 Document: 010110103811 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 4