Diaz v. Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 9 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GILBERT DIAZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-2215
(D.C. No. CIV-00-862-JP/WWD)
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO (D. N.M.)
POLICE DEPARTMENT; RAY
BACA; DON MCGRATH, APD
Officers, individuals performing
unauthorized acts while on official
duty; OTHERS YET UNNAMED, all
individually, jointly and severally,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , PORFILIO , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
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.
Plaintiff Gilbert Diaz filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by unlawfully and maliciously
taking him into custody, searching his van, detaining him for several hours,
mistreating him by forcing him to lie on the floor of the police station, and
threatening him. Additionally, plaintiff claims that $200 was missing from his
wallet when he retrieved his personal effects.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of
qualified immunity protected them from liability for civil damages. “Qualified
immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from
individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.’” Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co ., 147 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir. 1998)
(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In a detailed order
entered on July 18, 2002, the district court granted defendants’ motion.
“We review the grant . . . of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
legal standard used by the district court. Summary judgment is appropriate if
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” United States v. Simons , 129 F.3d 1386, 1388
-2-
(10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Having carefully reviewed the record on
appeal, the parties’ briefs, and the pertinent case law, we agree with the district
court’s analysis and its conclusions. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the entry of
summary judgment in favor of defendants, for substantially the same reasons set
forth in the order entered by the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-