Glasser v. King
17-1124
10th Cir.Jan 9, 2018Background
- Inmate Wayne Glasser suffered a heart attack on March 26, 2010, while incarcerated at Fremont Correctional Facility after experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, and dizziness during yard time.
- Correctional officers Hansen and Aranda contacted prison medical staff; Nurse Carol King instructed them to have Glasser rest and wait until after the facility count unless his condition worsened. Hansen did not apparently report chest pain to King initially.
- After the count, Glasser went to the clinic, received an EKG and initial treatment from physician’s assistant Michael Walsh, and was eventually transported off-site; he sustained myocardial infarction with alleged permanent heart damage from treatment delays.
- Glasser sued King and Walsh under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Colorado tort law; the jury found against Glasser on his § 1983 claims (not appealed), and the district court granted CGIA immunity to King and Walsh on state-law claims and denied Glasser leave to add correctional officers as defendants.
- Glasser appealed the two pretrial rulings: (1) CGIA immunity for King and Walsh on state-law tort claims, and (2) denial of leave to file a third amended complaint adding officers Hansen, Aranda, and Aultman; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King and Walsh are immune under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) for state-law negligence claims | Glasser: § 24-10-106(1)(b) waives immunity for operation of a correctional facility and thus applies to correctional employees; § 24-10-106(1.5)(a) does not strip employees of that waiver | King/Walsh: § 24-10-106(1.5)(a) limits waiver for claims by incarcerated convicts and thus preserves immunity for correctional-facility incidents involving inmates | Held: CGIA § 24-10-106(1.5)(a) restricts the waiver in § 24-10-106(1)(b) for convicted, incarcerated claimants; King and Walsh are immune |
| Whether Nieto precludes application of § 24-10-106(1.5)(a) to prison medical employees | Glasser: Colorado Supreme Court in Nieto recognized that prison medical employees are not immune for negligence in operating a correctional facility | Defs: Nieto pre-dates § 24-10-106(1.5)(a); it did not address that subsection and is inapplicable | Held: Nieto does not control because it preceded the 1994 enactment of § 24-10-106(1.5)(a) |
| Whether defendants waived CGIA immunity by not raising it in response to a certificate-of-review motion | Glasser: Defendants failed to timely assert CGIA immunity and thus waived it | Defs: Immunity was asserted in their answer and CGIA immunity implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived | Held: Immunity may be raised at any time; it is jurisdictional and was properly considered |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend to add new defendants (officers) | Glasser: Learned of officers’ alleged misreporting only after their 2013 depositions; moved to amend within two years of discovery; equitable tolling and relation-back apply | Defs/District Ct.: Claims are time-barred (accrued at the 2010 injury); Glasser delayed filing after discovery; relation-back inapplicable for adding new defendants; no equitable tolling shown | Held: Denial affirmed — claims accrued at the 2010 heart attack, equitable tolling not shown, relation-back inapplicable to adding new defendants, and there was undue delay |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. United States, 301 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir.) (CGIA immunity review and de novo standard)
- Burnett v. Colo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 346 P.3d 1005 (Colo.) (statutory interpretation rule: construe CGIA waivers broadly and immunity strictly)
- Martinez v. Estate of Bleck, 379 P.3d 315 (Colo.) (public-employee immunity under CGIA is jurisdictional)
- Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend as futile)
- Graves v. Gen. Ins. Corp., 412 F.2d 583 (10th Cir.) (adding wholly new defendants after limitations period undermines statute-of-limitations policy)