Anaya v. Crossroads Care Systems, Civil Action No. 96-WY-1396-AJ.

Decision Date28 August 1997
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 96-WY-1396-AJ.
Citation973 F.Supp. 1228
PartiesJude ANAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CROSSROADS MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado

Gregory Robert Stross, Gregory R. Stross Law Offices, LaJunta, CO, George Stivers Meyer, Law Office of George Meyer, Denver, CO, for plaintiffs.

Don H. Meinhold, Phillip A. Vaglica, Meinhold & Maldonado, Colorado Springs, CO, Robert M. Liechty, Halaby, Cross, Liechty & Schluter, Denver, CO, for defendants.

ORDER ON DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

ALAN B. JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

The parties' dispositive motions, including the County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Crossroads Managed Care Systems, and the plaintiffs' responses to the motions, came before the Court for consideration. The Court, having considered the motions and responses, the pleadings of record and submissions of the parties, the applicable law, and being fully advised, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Background and Contentions of the Parties

The defendants in this case include the City of Trinidad, its Mayor Harry Sayre in his official capacity, and its Chief of Police, James Montoya, and unnamed police officers. These defendants are referred to collectively as the "City defendants" in this order, unless otherwise specified. The group referred to as the "County defendants" includes Las Animas County, Sheriff of Las Animas County Lou Girodo and unnamed deputies, the Board of Commissioners of Las Animas County, and in their official capacities, Commissioners Eugene Lujan, Stanley Biber and Phil Valdez. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc. ("Crossroads") is also a defendant. Crossroads is a private non-profit corporation providing alcohol and drug detoxification and outpatient treatment services in Trinidad.

Plaintiffs include a number of individuals who allege they were unlawfully detained and transported by law enforcement officers to Crossroads and held by Crossroads, in violation of Colo.Rev.Stat. § 25-1-310 for various periods from approximately June 30, 1995 to the time of filing the complaint. Plaintiffs assert they were unlawfully seized and held against their will and that this violated plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and Colorado law. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' acts were performed under color of state law, deprived each plaintiff of due process and the right to be free from illegal search and seizures, and deprived them of rights and privileges secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They assert pendent state law claims of false imprisonment, negligence, negligence per se, civil conspiracy, extreme and outrageous conduct and assault.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs offer the following historical factual background. Prior to 1995, Crossroads operated an alcohol detoxication facility ("detox") in Trinidad, Colorado. The facility was licensed by the State of Colorado and received funding from the State by contract. That facility was closed, apparently because it was not sufficiently used and because it was not profitable for the operator. After the original Trinidad detox facility closed, the nearest detox facility was in Pueblo, Colorado, approximately 85 miles from Trinidad. The Pueblo facility was also operated by Crossroads. Plaintiffs allege that the Pueblo facility received funding that included an allocation for beds dedicated to serve clients from the Trinidad area.

In 1995, plaintiffs allege that officials from the City of Trinidad and County of Las Animas advised Crossroads that they would contact state officials to request that the beds allotted for Trinidad be removed from Crossroads' use in Pueblo. Plaintiffs allege that Crossroads then had a choice of losing the allotment of beds in Pueblo or reopening the Trinidad detox facility. For whatever reason, in late 1994 or early 1995, Crossroads determined that it would reopen the Trinidad detox facility. The Trinidad facility was reopened on June 30, 1995.

The substance of plaintiffs' claims against all defendants is that they entered into a tacit, if not express, agreement designed to ensure that the Trinidad detox facility was fully utilized and would stay open in the future. This policy was also designed to ensure that Crossroads was adequately compensated and that the facility would be profitable and could therefore, remain open.

In its motion for summary judgment, Crossroads asserts that it receives funding from various sources, although the greatest part of its revenues (76.5%) are from the State of Colorado Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division of the Department of Human Services. It also receives revenues from local city/county revenues (14.7%), client fees (7.2%) and other federal and state agencies (1.7%). Crossroads enters into contracts with the Colorado Department of Health that provide for reimbursement of its services. Under those contracts, Crossroads is disclaimed as being an agent of or an employee of the State of Colorado.

Crossroads is required to meet standards established by the Colorado Department of Health in order to be approved and licensed as a drug and alcohol treatment program. The state standards are utilized by Crossroads as guidelines, with other protocols, some of which are generated by Crossroads itself, to be followed in the operations of the Crossroads detox crisis intervention center. Those protocols give Crossroads supervisors a certain amount of discretion regarding admission, treatment, and discharge of clients into and from detox. Specific decisions regarding admission, treatment, length of an individual's stay and discharge are made by Crossroads as the operator of the detox program.

In this case, plaintiffs were taken to detox by Trinidad police officers. They assert their constitutional rights have been violated and that they were deprived of due process. Specifically, plaintiffs challenge the policy of the City of Trinidad to take intoxicated individuals to Crossroads' detox facility and the goal of keeping the facility open as an alternative to detention in jail or some other facility.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants collectively engaged in an effort to assure that Crossroads facility in Trinidad was fully utilized by taking persons to that facility in a manner not authorized by Colorado's emergency commitment statute, C.R.S. § 25-1-310. In June of 1995, defendant Chief of Police Montoya issued General Order 95-03, which stated:

General Order

95-03

Full Detox services will become available locally beginning June 30, 1995 at 17:00 hrs. Effective immediately, when an Officer has contact with any individual who exhibits any potential of intoxication, resulting from the ingestion of alcohol, drugs, inhalants or any combination of those substances, the subject is to be evaluated by Detox center staff for consideration of detox treatment. All D.U.I., D.U.I.D., D.W.A.I., underage drinking 18-21 years of age, or any person arrested who is under the influence [of] alcohol or other substances, regardless of whether bond posted, or ability to post bond, will be evaluated by Detox personnel. Any person who is a danger to himself or others as a result of alcohol or drug ingestion will also be evaluated for placement. The decision to commit a subject to detox rests solely with C.M.C.S. staff.

Any individual contacted and meeting detox criteria, will be medically cleared by Officers in the following situations:

1. Adolescent individuals

2. Pregnant females

3. Obviously injured individuals

Officers should have individuals meeting any of the three above criteria medically cleared at the Emergency Room, prior to admitting the person to detox.

Additionally, Crossroads Managed Care Systems will not accept an unconscious client or any injured person who refuses medical treatment. In order to avoid conflict, officers should not refer any subject who meets the refusal criteria to Detox.

The C.M.C.S. Detox will remain available contingent on full utilization. A great deal of cooperation, effort and resources went into the re-opening of this facility. If client referrals are not frequently made the facility will not remain available.

Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to City and County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1; also at City and County Defendants' Brief, Exhibit EE.

Section 25-1-310 of the Colorado Revised Statutes provides in its entirety:

(1) When any person is intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol and clearly dangerous to the health and safety of himself or others, such person shall be taken into protective custody by law enforcement authorities or an emergency service patrol, acting with probable cause, and placed in an approved treatment facility. If no such facilities are available, he may be detained in an emergency medical facility or jail, but only for so long as may be necessary to prevent injury to himself or others or to prevent a breach of the peace. A law enforcement or emergency service patrolman, in detaining the person, is taking him to protective custody. In so doing, the detaining officer may protect himself by reasonable methods but shall make every reasonable effort to protect the detainee's health and safety. A taking into protective custody under this section is not an arrest, and no entry or other record shall be made to indicate that the person has been arrested or charged with a crime. Law enforcement or emergency service personnel who act in compliance with this section are acting in the course of their official duties and are not criminally or civilly liable therefor. Nothing in this subsection (1) shall preclude an intoxicated or incapacitated person who is not dangerous to the health and safety of himself or others from being assisted to his home or like location by the law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Anaya et al. v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 2, 1999
    ...dismissed all the claims on two grounds. First, "[t]he Court [found] no constitutional violation." Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1228, 1244 (D. Colo. 1997). In addition, the court found bars to each defendant's being sued for the alleged conduct. The court foun......
  • Anaya v. CroddRoads Managed Care Systems, 10
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 13, 1999
    ...dismissed all the claims on two grounds. First, "[t]he Court [found] no constitutional violation." Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 1228, 1244 (D. Colo. 1997). In addition, the court found bars to each defendant's being sued for the alleged conduct. The court foun......
  • Kimbal v. Garden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • September 30, 2015
    ...personal participation of the defendant in violating the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 1228, 1248 (D. Colo. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 195 F.3d 584 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2s 1260, 12162-63......
  • Gunn v. Gordon
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • September 30, 2015
    ...personal participation of the defendant in violating the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Sys, Inc., 973 F. Supp. 1228, 1248 (D. Colo. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 195 F.3d 584 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2s 1260, 12162-63......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT