United States District Court, D. Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MARCIA S. KRIEGER, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant Timothy Hand's Motion for Summary Judgment (#36). The Plaintiff Raul Permuy Calderon, proceeding pro se,  filed an Amended Response (#46) to the motion. The Defendant did not reply.
Having reviewed the record and the parties' filings, the Court finds the following material facts to be undisputed, or construed most favorably to the non-movant, here Mr. Calderon.
On March 8, 2000, Mr. Calderon was convicted of a class three felony under state law. He was sentenced to 12 years in the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), plus a mandatory five-year parole period. Mr. Calderon was released on parole on April 14, 2010.
Following a hearing on September 16, 2011, the parole board revoked Mr. Calderon's parole for a period of 180 days. While re-incarcerated, Mr. Calderon committed a prison violation. As a result, the parole board suspended automatic reinstitution of parole, pending another hearing. The hearing occurred, and on January 17, 2012, the board rescinded its decision to release Mr. Calderon on parole as originally scheduled, and instead extended the period of his detention for an additional 120 days.
Mr. Calderon brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Mr. Hand denied him procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because as Director of the Division of Adult Parole, Mr. Hand was obligated but failed to provide Mr. Calderon with a written complaint concerning the nature of the disciplinary charge prior to the January 17, 2012 hearing.
Mr. Hand moves for summary judgment, arguing that (i) Mr. Calderon cannot establish that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected interest; (ii) Mr. Hand did not personally participate in the alleged constitutional violation; (iii) Mr. Hand is entitled to qualified immunity; (iv) Mr. Calderon's claim for compensatory damages is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); and (v) Mr. Calderon cannot establish that he is entitled to punitive damages.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure facilitates the entry of a judgment only if no trial is necessary. See White v. York Intern. Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995). Summary adjudication is authorized when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Substantive law governs what facts are material and what issues must be determined. It also specifies the elements that must be proved for a given claim or defense, sets the standard of proof and identifies the party with the burden of proof. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. v. Producer's Gas Co., 870 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir. 1989). A factual dispute is "genuine" and summary judgment is precluded if the evidence presented in support of and opposition to the motion is so contradictory that, if presented at trial, a judgment could enter for either party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When considering a summary judgment motion, a court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, thereby favoring the right to a trial. See Garrett v. Hewlett Packard Co., 305 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 2002).
If the movant has the burden of proof on a claim or defense, the movant must establish every element of its claim or defense by sufficient, competent evidence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has met its burden, to avoid summary judgment the responding party must present sufficient, competent, contradictory evidence to establish a genuine factual dispute. See Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991); Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 1999). If there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, a trial is required. If there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, no trial is required. The court then applies the law to the undisputed facts and enters judgment.
If the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial, it must point to an absence of sufficient evidence to establish the claim or defense that the non-movant is obligated to prove. If the respondent comes forward with sufficient competent evidence to establish a prima facie claim or defense, a trial is required. If the respondent fails to produce sufficient competent evidence to establish its claim or defense, then the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
Mr. Calderon's parole was revoked in September 2011, and he does not challenge the procedure afforded him with regard to his original parole revocation. Rather, he complains about the procedure preceding the parole board's decision in January 2012 to delay his release beyond the anticipated 180 days. He ...