Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01312/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01312-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~.u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAQited States Court of Appeal, Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHAWN BLITZ, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DAN WYCKOFF, JOHN BLEA, JOHN ) 

WYCKOFF, and other presently ) 

unknown employees of the Denver ) 

Police Department, RAY WELLS, and ) 

other presently unknown Auraria ) 

Public Safety Officers, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APR 2 9 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

1 No . 92-1312 

(D.C. No. 91-B-648 ) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH, BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, thi s panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed . R. App. P . 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9 . The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

On June 28, 1990, several children in Denver, Colorado , reported to police that they had observed a man abduct a baby. When 

Plainti f f passed by on the street, the children identified h i m as 

* This o rder and j udgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court withi n the Tenth Circuit, ex- c ept for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36. 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-1312 Document: 010110220229 Date Filed: 04/29/1993 Page: 1 
the man they had seen. Plaintiff was arrested, but he was released when police could find no evidence that a kidnapping had 

actually occurred. 

Plaintiff brought this civil rights action arising out of his 

arrest. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment based on qualified immunity, and Plaintiff appeals. We 

affirm. 

I 

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting the 

motions for summary judgment without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain counsel. This action took over twelve months to 

fully resolve. Summary judgment was only finally granted as to 

all Defendants in May 1991, while Plaintiff indicated that he 

needed new counsel as early as January 1991. We find no abuse of 

discretion in the district court's scheduling of this matter. 

II 

Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment because there were material issues of fact in 

dispute. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that there was evidence 

to show that Defendants acted on information that they knew to be 

false. However, despite being given repeated opportunities to 

submit evidence to the district court, Plaintiff did not submit 

any affidavits or exhibits. His only responses were two pages of 

unsworn, conclusory arguments. Under the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1312 Document: 010110220229 Date Filed: 04/29/1993 Page: 2 
district court was entitled to base its ruling on the uncontroverted facts in Defendants' motion. 

Plaintiff argues that he attempted to introduce evidence at a 

March 4, 1992 status conference. However, the transcript of that 

proceeding shows that the district court gave Plaintiff a week to 

submit any further evidence he might have. Plaintiff submitted no 

such evidence. Plaintiff was not entitled to try his case at the 

status conference, and should have submitted any evidence he had, 

by affidavit or exhibit, to the district court as instructed. 

III 

Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in determining 

that, because a reasonable officer would have believed that there 

was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, qualified immunity was 

appropriate. As noted above, Plaintiff presents allegations on 

appeal which were not properly presented to the district court. 

Reviewing the facts as presented to the district court, we conclude that qualified immunity was appropriate for the reasons 

given by the trial court. 1 

1 Plaintiff's primary new allegation is that he does not fit 

the description given to police of the alleged kidnapper. Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not dispute the defense contention that 

Plaintiff was specifically identified on the street as the alleged 

perpetrator. Thus, even if we were to consider Plaintiff's claim 

that he did not fit the initial description given to police, we 

would not alter our conclusion that the district court did not err 

in concluding that a reasonable officer would believe he had prob -

able c ause to arrest Plaintiff. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1312 Document: 010110220229 Date Filed: 04/29/1993 Page: 3 
The judgment of the district court i s AFFIRMED . 

The mandate shall i ssue forthwith. 

4 

Entered for the Court 

Monr oe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1312 Document: 010110220229 Date Filed: 04/29/1993 Page: 4