Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01275/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon Bauer
Appellant
City and County of Denver
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GORDON BAUER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-1275 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01746-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 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. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

During his brief incarceration in the Denver County Jail, Gordon Bauer 

complained of pain in his leg, ankle, and foot. He received medical treatment while in jail 

but his condition ultimately required amputation, which took place after he was released 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 1 
2 

from custody. Mr. Bauer filed a complaint against the City and County of Denver (the 

City) more than two years after his release, claiming the City had subjected him to cruel 

and unusual punishment by denying him timely access to adequate medical care. The 

City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations and for failure 

to state a claim, and Mr. Bauer moved to amend his complaint. The district court denied 

Mr. Bauer leave to amend and granted the City’s motion to dismiss. We affirm. 

II. BACKGROUND1

Mr. Bauer alleges in his complaint that he was incarcerated in the Denver County 

Jail during the months of April and May 2012 under the custody of the Denver Sheriff’s 

Department. During that time, he reported extreme pain in his right leg, ankle, and foot, 

but “was refused proper medical treatment.” 

Only after Mr. Bauer complained for several days did the jail employees transport 

him to a Denver Health medical facility. But while in the care of Denver Health, Mr. 

Bauer “was not properly cared for.” In particular, Denver Health “failed to properly 

diagnose and treat Mr. Bauer’s foot” and instead simply applied bandages and sent him 

back to jail. After Mr. Bauer continued to complain about the pain, jail employees again 

took him to Denver Health where he was informed his foot could no longer be saved. 

Mr. Bauer was released from jail soon thereafter and saw several physicians in an 

attempt to save his foot. The physicians each indicated that proper treatment while in jail 

 1 We state the facts as alleged in Mr. Bauer’s complaint. Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 

995, 1000 (10th Cir. 2010) (in determining whether a motion to dismiss was properly 

granted, “[w]e accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”). 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 2 
3 

could have saved his foot but that “[a]s a result of the City’s negligence and Denver 

Health’s negligence Mr. Bauer was required to undergo full amputation of his lower leg 

on June 28, 201[2].” 

On June 23, 2014, Mr. Bauer filed a section 1983 complaint against the City that is 

the subject of this dispute. He alleges the City acted in bad faith and with deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs and constitutional rights when an unknown individual 

defendant willfully ignored his repeated requests for medical assistance, and he further 

claims this indifference led to the amputation of his foot. 

On January 2, 2015, the City filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Mr. Bauer 

failed to timely serve his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 

that his complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, and that he had failed to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. On February 6, 2015, Mr. Bauer filed a motion 

to amend his complaint together with a proposed amended complaint. 

The district court denied Mr. Bauer’s motion to amend and also granted the City’s 

motion to dismiss on July 5, 2015. Mr. Bauer timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 3 
4 

III. DISCUSSION 

On appeal, Mr. Bauer argues the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion to 

amend the complaint, (2) dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, and 

(3) dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. We agree with the district court 

that dismissal was appropriate on either basis and that amending the complaint would 

have been futile. Accordingly, we affirm. 

A. Dismissal 

The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss both for failure to state a 

claim and because Mr. Bauer’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. We 

review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Slater v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 719 F.3d 1190, 1196 (10th Cir. 

2013). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient “to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). On review, “[w]e accept the well-pleaded allegations 

of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 

Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corr., 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2000). 

Mr. Bauer has filed suit directly against the City; to establish municipal liability, 

he is therefore required to show (1) “the existence of a municipal policy or custom” and 

(2) “a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged.” Mocek v. 

City of Albuquerque, No. 14-2063, 2015 WL 9298662 at * 14 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) 

(quoting Graves v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006)). “Through ‘its 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 4 
5 

deliberate conduct,’ the municipality must have been the ‘moving force’ behind the 

injury.” Id. (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). 

Mr. Bauer has failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim for municipal 

liability. In his complaint, he makes various allegations against an unnamed “Individual 

Defendant,” claiming this defendant prevented him from gaining access to adequate 

medical care and further treatment. For example, he claims this defendant “act[ed] in bad 

faith and with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and 

constitutional rights when he willfully ignored his repeated requests for medical attention 

and intentionally denied and/or delayed his access to medical care.” And he further 

alleges that “the acts or omissions of Defendant as described herein intentionally 

deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and were moving forces and substantial 

significant contributing proximate causes of Plaintiff’s injuries.” 

In his proposed amended complaint, he adds that the City’s (specifically the 

Sheriff’s Department’s) “unconstitutional policies, customs, [and] practices, as described 

herein, were the legal proximate cause of the amputation of the Plaintiff’s foot” and that 

the City “has recently been hit with numerous lawsuit[s] and allegations including abuse 

and failure to provide medical attention to their inmates.” 

As the district court correctly acknowledged, Mr. Bauer’s complaint contains 

insufficient allegations to support a claim that the City “was the ‘moving force’” behind 

the alleged constitutional violation. Brown, 520 U.S. at 404. Indeed, allegations that an 

“Individual Defendant” was the cause of Mr. Bauer’s inadequate access to medical 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 5 
6 

treatment are insufficient because “[a] municipality is not liable solely because its 

employees caused injury.” Mocek, 2015 WL 9298662 at * 14. 

Furthermore, the complaint lacks allegations to support a claim that the City’s 

established practice was to withhold timely and adequate access to medical care. On 

appeal, Mr. Bauer recognizes that such a practice “need not be codified and may be 

evidenced by a widespread practice so permanent and well settled as to constitute a 

custom or usage having the force of law.” But his complaint contains allegations about 

only a single incident—the treatment of Mr. Bauer’s medical complaints during his 

incarceration. 

The district court also correctly concluded the action is barred by the statute of 

limitations. “Plaintiffs have no obligation to plead against affirmative defenses,” 

including a statute of limitations defense. Asebedo v. Kan. State Univ., 559 F. App’x. 

668, 671 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). But “when the dates given in the complaint 

make clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished,” dismissal under 12(b)(6) is 

appropriate. Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Such a defense can only serve as a basis for dismissal, however, if “the allegations in the 

complaint suffice to establish that ground.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). 

Based on the allegations in Mr. Bauer’s complaint, dismissal was warranted on 

statute of limitations grounds. As the district court aptly explained in its order, Mr. 

Bauer’s claim was subject to a two-year statute of limitations that accrued on the date he 

knew or should have known his constitutional rights had been violated. Colo. Rev. Stat. 

§ 13-80-102(1)(g); Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1154 (10th Cir. 1998) (Section 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 6 
7 

1983 claims founded on alleged constitutional violations “accrue when the plaintiff 

knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Bauer claims he was subject to cruel and unusual 

punishment when he was denied access to appropriate medical care while incarcerated 

“in April of 2012 through May of 2012.” Even taking the latest of these dates, Mr. 

Bauer’s action is barred by the expiration of the limitations period. 

On appeal, Mr. Bauer maintains that his claim accrued on the date of his 

amputation—June 28, 2012. But his alleged injury is not the amputation itself, which 

occurred after he was released from custody; it is the alleged cruel and unusual 

punishment during his incarceration, manifested by deliberate indifference to his medical 

needs. Although Mr. Bauer asserts this indifference led to the amputation, he 

acknowledges in his complaint that he became aware his foot could not be saved before 

he was released from custody in May 2012. See Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206, 

1216 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e focus on whether the plaintiff knew of facts that would put 

a reasonable person on notice that wrongful conduct caused the harm.”). Because the 

dates on the face of Mr. Bauer’s complaint “make clear that the right sued upon ha[d] 

been extinguished” at the latest in May 2014 (two years after his release), the district 

court correctly concluded that Mr. Bauer’s claim brought in June 2014 was barred by the 

statute of limitations. Aldrich, 627 F.2d at 1041 n.4. 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 7 
8 

B. Motion to Amend 

Mr. Bauer further claims the district court erred in denying his motion to amend 

his complaint. “[T]he grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is 

within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 

401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). And “we will not reverse the court’s decision ‘absent an abuse 

of discretion.’” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Wessel v. City of Albuquerque, 299 F.3d 1186, 1197 (10th Cir. 2002)). Leave 

should be “freely give[n],” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but a court may properly deny leave 

for various reasons, including undue delay or “futility of amendment,” Foman v. Davis, 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “A proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, 

would be subject to dismissal.” Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999). 

As a result, “[t]he futility question is functionally equivalent to the question whether a 

complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim, a question this court reviews de 

novo.” Id. 

On appeal, Mr. Bauer contends the district court did “not give any specifics on 

how the Amended Complaint if allowed would fail to state a claim for relief” and “failed 

[to] look at the amended complaint in its analysis and accept all factual allegations as 

true.” But in ruling on Mr. Bauer’s motion to amend, the district court considered all of 

the allegations in Mr. Bauer’s proposed amended complaint and assumed them to be true. 

The district court nevertheless found the additional allegations insufficient to support a 

claim for municipal liability. 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 8 
9 

We agree that Mr. Bauer’s proposed amended complaint added little to his claim. 

He merely noted that “[t]he Sheriff names that were involved are unknown to the 

Plaintiff” and that the Sheriff’s Department’s “unconstitutional policies, customs, [and] 

practices, as described herein, were the legal proximate cause of the amputation of the 

Plaintiff’s foot.” To support this position, he asserted that “the City has recently been hit 

with numerous lawsuit[s] and allegations including abuse and failure to provide medical 

attention to [its] inmates.” But vague notions of pending lawsuits and a conclusory 

statement of the Sheriff’s Department’s customs fail to provide the factual allegations 

that withholding medical care was the City’s pattern or practice. See Monell v. Dep’t of 

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 

1999) (“[A] plaintiff cannot rely upon scattershot accusations of unrelated constitutional 

violations to prove either that a municipality was indifferent to the risk of her specific 

injury or that it was the moving force behind her deprivation.”). The district court 

therefore properly dismissed Mr. Bauer’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6). 

As amendment would have been futile, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Mr. Bauer’s motion to amend. 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 9 
10 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting the 

City’s motion to dismiss and denying Mr. Bauer’s motion to amend. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-1275 Document: 01019586998 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 10