Bauer v. City and County of Denver, 642 F. App'x 920

Bauer was jailed in Denver County Jail in April–May 2012 and complained of severe right leg/foot pain; jail staff delayed and provided limited treatment.
While in jail he was taken to Denver Health; he alleges Denver Health failed to diagnose/treat and returned him to jail; later told his foot could not be saved.
Bauer was released in May 2012 and subsequently underwent a below‑knee amputation on June 28, 2012; treating physicians stated timely care in jail could have prevented amputation.
On June 23, 2014 Bauer filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the City and County of Denver alleging deliberate indifference/cruel and unusual punishment and naming only an unnamed individual defendant in the complaint.
The City moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and as time‑barred; the district court denied leave to amend, granted dismissal, and Bauer appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states Monell municipal‑liability claim	Bauer: City’s customs/policies caused denial of medical care; alleged ongoing problems and other lawsuits show policy/custom	City: Complaint alleges only a single incident and blames an unnamed individual; no factual municipal policy/custom pleaded	Court: Dismissed for failure to plead facts showing a municipal policy or that City was the moving force
Whether claim is time‑barred	Bauer: Claim accrued at amputation (June 28, 2012), so filing June 23, 2014 was timely	City: § 1983 claims accrue when plaintiff knew or should have known rights were violated; Bauer knew before release in May 2012	Court: Claim accrued no later than May 2012; suit filed June 2014 was untimely under Colorado’s two‑year statute; dismissal affirmed
Whether district court should have granted leave to amend	Bauer: Proposed amended complaint added allegations about Sheriff’s Department customs and recent lawsuits	City: Amendment would be futile; allegations remain conclusory and lack factual pattern	Court: Amendment would be futile; denial of leave was not an abuse of discretion
Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate	Bauer: Facts, if accepted, state deliberate indifference claim against City	City: Complaint and dates on face make limitations and Monell defects clear; dismissal proper	Court: Affirmed dismissal on either statute‑of‑limitations or failure‑to‑state grounds

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom as moving force)
Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipality must be the moving force behind constitutional violation)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (complaint must plead facts sufficient to show affirmative defenses may be apparent on face)
Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980) (complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when dates on face show claim is time‑barred)
Slater v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 719 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)