Garcia v. Jefferson County, 10th Cir. (1997)
Garcia v. Jefferson County, 10th Cir. (1997)
Garcia v. Jefferson County, 10th Cir. (1997)
JUL 18 1997
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PETE GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY DATILLO, JAMES BRAD
JOHNSON, KEVIN CARTICA, JON
NOTH, GARY GRAINGER, FRANK
GREENBERG, RANDY WEST,
INVESTIGATOR ROBERT VETTE,
B. WILLIAMS and DOUGLAS MOORE,
individually and as Deputy Sheriffs in the
Jefferson County Sheriffs Department,
No. 96-1135
(D.C. Civil Action No. 93-N-2110)
(D. Colorado)
Defendants-Appellees.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this 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.
Plaintiff Pete Garcia appeals the district courts denial of his motion to file a third
amended complaint in his 42 U.S C. 1983 action. Plaintiff asserted that on March 26,
1987, Jefferson County, Colorado, Sheriffs officers beat him, arrested and imprisoned
him without probable cause, and conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights.1
The first amended complaint named as defendants several Jefferson County
Sheriffs officers in their official and individual capacities, as well as the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners. In April 1994, plaintiff obtained leave to file a second
amended complaint, deleting the Board of County Commissioners and adding the
-2-
A panel of this court upheld the district courts finding that the individual
plaintiffs were not entitled to qualified or absolute immunity. Garcia v. Johnson, No. 941360, 1995 WL 492879 (10th Cir. Aug. 18, 1995). That opinion contains a full recitation
of the facts; we do not restate them here because they are not dispositive of this appeal.
3
-3-
affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to
permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court. United
States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994).
We first note that the motion to amend was filed more than one year following the
October 1, 1994 deadline the district court set for joinder of parties and amended
pleadings.4 A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when
the plaintiff did not comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) scheduling order. See Johnson
v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
Further, the district court denied leave to file the third amended complaint for
sound reasons. Plaintiff alleged that Major Anthony Datillo of the Sheriffs Department
was the final policy maker for the Board of County Commissioners. In Colorado,
however, the county commissioners and county sheriffs are separate entities. See Wigger
v. McKee, 809 P.2d 999, 1003-04 (Colo. App. 1990). Plaintiff did not allege that
Jefferson County Commissioners were responsible for policy making for the Sheriffs
Department. Although the county, through its commissioners, might ultimately have the
authority to pay a judgment against the Sheriffs Department, that does not establish that a
sheriffs officer is a policy maker of the Board of County Commissioners. See Pembaur
v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 482-83 & n.12 (1986).
Although plaintiff points out that the district court made several scheduling
orders after this, plaintiff does not argue that the district court extended the deadline to
join parties nor has our review of the record revealed any order doing so.
4
-4-
AFFIRMED. We deny plaintiffs motion to take judicial notice that the Drug
Enforcement Agency was not involved in the raid that was the basis for plaintiffs suit.
Entered for the Court
James K. Logan
Circuit Judge
-5-