Bell v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 01 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94SC99,94SC99 |
| Citation | 918 P.2d 1123 |
| Parties | R.M. BELL, Petitioner, v. Dennis SIMPSON and Colorado School of Healing Arts, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Karen S. Renne, Denver, for Petitioner.
Weiner and Schiller, P.C., Richard A. Weiner, Englewood, for Respondents.
In this case, the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, entered an order dismissing an appeal filed by plaintiff-petitioner R.M. Bell (Bell). Bell sought appellate review of an order of the County Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, dismissing a libel and slander action Bell had filed against defendants-respondents Dennis Simpson and the Colorado School of Healing Arts (the respondents). In the course of dismissing the appeal, the district court concluded, inter alia, that Bell, though indigent, was nevertheless required by the provisions of C.R.C.P. 411(a) 1 to post an appeal bond for costs as a condition of his appeal. Having granted Bell's petition for certiorari review of that determination, we reverse and remand with directions.
Bell, appearing without counsel, filed this civil action in the County Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, in November 1993. The complaint contained allegations that the respondents had mailed a letter containing libelous and slanderous statements about Bell and had improperly terminated his participation in a student massage clinic. Bell sought damages for alleged physical and emotional injuries and requested a jury trial. On December 1, 1993, Bell filed an "Application for Indigency Status." The county court reviewed the application with Bell in open court that same day, granted the application, stated that Bell need not pay a fee to obtain a jury trial, and advised Bell to retain an attorney. The case was set for trial on April 11, 1994.
On January 18, 1994, Bell filed a motion to transfer his case from the county court to the district court, which motion was denied. Bell filed an appeal of the denial of his motion for transfer and in connection therewith filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 26, 1994, Bell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. 2 On January 27, 1994, the district court denied Bell's appeal.
Bell next filed a pleading captioned "Motion for Certiorari" in this court seeking review of the district court's January 27, 1994, order. He also filed a motion requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We granted Bell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his request for certiorari review of the January 27, 1994, order.
On April 7, 1994, the county court conducted a pretrial conference with respect to this case. Bell initially orally moved for recusal of the trial judge, which motion was denied. The respondents then orally moved for summary judgment against Bell. After reviewing the letter forming the basis for the complaint, the county court granted the motion and entered summary judgment for the respondents and against Bell. The county court also issued a restraining order enjoining Bell, inter alia, from going within 500 yards of the respondents and from contacting the respondents or their counsel either in person or by telephone.
On April 8, 1994, Bell filed notices of appeal of the April 7, 1994, judgment in both the county court and the district court. On June 14, 1994, the county court issued a citation ordering Bell to appear before said court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violation of the April 7, 1994, restraining order. Bell promptly filed a "Motion for Show Cause" and a "Motion for Show Cause, Amended" in the district court requesting, inter alia, that the district court stay all pending county court proceedings regarding the contempt citation. On July 11, 1994, the district court denied Bell's motion, stating that "since [Bell] has not filed an appeal bond as required by Rule 411(a)(1), this Court has no jurisdiction to direct a stay of the proceedings in the County Court." The county court ultimately discharged the contempt citation.
In late August of 1994, Bell filed a motion for waiver of appeal bond in the district court, asserting that he was indigent. On September 29, 1994, the district court entered an order denying Bell's motion, in the following pertinent language: Bell then filed a pleading entitled "Appeal of Denial on Bond Waiver" in this court, requesting relief from the district court's September 29, 1994, order. We deemed that pleading to be a petition for the exercise of original jurisdiction pursuant to C.A.R. 21 and denied it on November 23, 1994.
On December 2, 1994, Bell filed a pleading entitled "Motion for Bond Waiver" in the county court alleging that he previously had been declared indigent by the county court and that his case should be set for trial. The respondents moved to strike Bell's motion, arguing, inter alia, that this court's order of November 23, 1994, denying Bell's petition for the exercise of original jurisdiction constituted an affirmance of the district court's denial of Bell's motion for waiver of appeal bond. 3 The respondents also argued that the portion of Bell's motion requesting that the case be set for trial "ignor[es] the fact that [the county court] has previously entered summary judgment against [Bell] and in favor of [the respondents]...." The parties agree that the county court granted the respondents' motion to strike. 4
Bell then filed an appeal in the district court of the county court's order striking Bell's motion for waiver of the appeal bond. On January 3, 1995, the district court affirmed the county court's decision. The district court order contains the following pertinent language:
On April 7, 1994, a hearing was held before [the county court]. At the conclusion of the hearing, [the county court] granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.... The Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Bond Waiver pointed out the fact of the entry of summary judgment. [The county court] had no alternative but to grant the Motion to Strike.
Mr. Bell has had ample opportunity to have his appeals reviewed, not only by this Court, but also by the Colorado Supreme Court....
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Appeal of Motion to Strike is denied.
2. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.
The district court thus dismissed all pending matters, including Bell's appeal of the county court's judgment against him on his claims of libel and slander.
Bell subsequently obtained the services of an attorney and filed a petition for relief in the nature of mandamus in this court with respect to the district court's January 3, 1995, order. In view of the fact that Bell was represented by counsel, we ordered Bell to file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He did so, and we granted the motion. In granting Bell's petition, we deemed it to be a petition for certiorari review of the district court's January 3, 1995, order of dismissal.
Bell argues that the district court erroneously determined that Bell's failure to file an appeal bond for costs pursuant to C.R.C.P. 411(a) prohibits him from prosecuting an appeal of the county court's judgment. Bell contends that the provision requiring the filing of an appeal bond for costs is not applicable to indigent plaintiffs. We agree.
A plaintiff appealing an adverse county court judgment to a district court must post an "appeal bond" to cover the "costs of the appeal" and of any counterclaim. 5 C.R.C.P. 411(a). Rule 411(a) contains the following pertinent language:
(a) Notice of Appeal; Time for Filing; Bond. If either party in a civil action believes that the judgment of the county court is in error, that party may appeal to the district court by filing a notice of appeal in the county court within fifteen days after the date of entry of judgment.... The appealing party shall also file within the said fifteen days an appeal bond with the clerk of the county court.... [I]f the appeal is taken by the plaintiff, [the bond] shall be conditioned to pay the costs of the appeal and the counterclaim, if any, and, if the appeal be taken by the defendant, shall be conditioned to pay the costs and judgment if the appealing party fail.... Upon filing of the notice of appeal [and] the posting and approval of the bond ... the county court shall discontinue all further proceedings and recall any execution issued. The appellant shall also, within thirty days after the filing of the notice of appeal, docket the case in the district court and pay the docket fee.
Rule 411(a) does not directly address the question of whether a plaintiff authorized to proceed in forma pauperis in the county court, and thus excused from paying costs associated with county court litigation, must nevertheless post an appeal bond for costs in order to perfect an appeal to the district court from an adverse county court judgment. 6
While C.R.C.P. 411(a) contains no express provision concerning indigent litigants, we need not construe a rule of procedure in isolation from relevant legislative direction. This is especially true when the legislative policies are similar to policies reflected by our rules of procedure in general. Such considerations in no way diminish the significance of this court's independent rule-making authority. See Colo. Const. art. VI, § 21; J.T. v. O'Rourke, 651 P.2d 407, 410 & n. 2 (Colo.1982); Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 318-19, 592 P.2d 792, 800-01 (1979); People v. McKenna, 196 Colo. 367, 370-73, 585 P.2d 275, 276-79 (1978).
Section 13-16-103(1), 6A C.R.S. (1995 Supp.), contains the following pertinent provisions:
13-16-103. Costs of poor person. (1) If the judge or justice of any court, including the supreme court, is at any time satisfied that any person is unable to prosecute or defend any civil action or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Trani
...for an extraordinary writ by the CSC does not indicate that the court has considered the merits of the argument. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123, 1125 n.3 (Colo. 1996). Accordingly, filing a petition that the CSC, in its discretion, may deny is not sufficient to exhaust state court remedies.......
-
In the Matter of J.P.L.
...to exercise its original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 is not a review on the merits of the claims presented. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123, 1125 n. 3 (Colo.1996); People v. Daley, 97 P.3d 295, 297 Here, our supreme court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21; there......
-
Albright v. Raemisch
...writ by the Colorado Supreme Court does not indicate that the court has considered the merits of the argument. See Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123, 1125 n.3 (Colo. 1996). Mr. Albright initiated four separate state court proceedings before and during the time he has been seeking relief in thi......
-
Pavlov v. Smelzer
...writ by the Colorado Supreme Court does not indicate that the court has considered the merits of the argument. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123, 1125 n.3 (Colo. 1996). Therefore, because Mr. Pavlov fails to demonstrate that the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the merits of the third claim he......
-
ARTICLE 16
...or appellate, to permit an indigent plaintiff to exercise the statutory right to appeal without the payment of costs. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1996). The plain language of subsection (1) requires a judicial officer of any court, trial or appellate, to permit an indigent plainti......
-
ARTICLE 16 COSTS CIVIL ACTIONS
...or appellate, to permit an indigent plaintiff to exercise the statutory right to appeal without the payment of costs. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1996). The plain language of subsection (1) requires a judicial officer of any court, trial or appellate, to permit an indigent plainti......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.5 • COST BONDS AND JUDGMENT BONDS
...an indigent litigant is entitled to appeal without filing the cost bond required by C.A.R. 7. That decision followed Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1996), in which the Colorado Supreme Court held that C.R.C.P. 411(a), which requires the filing of a cost bond for an appeal from county......
-
Rule 411 APPEALS.
...provisions of this section requiring the filing of an appeal bond for costs are not applicable to indigent plaintiffs. Bell v. Simpson, 918 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1996). A county court party found to be indigent and allowed to proceed in forma pauperis is not required to post a judgment bond befo......