Carbajal v. Serra

Decision Date29 August 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 10-cv-02862-REB-KLM
PartiesDEAN CARBAJAL, Plaintiff, v. MYRL SERRA, in his individual capacity, SHERRI PRICE, in her individual capacity, CAROL WARNER, in her individual capacity, DAVID ROMERO, in his individual capacity, JOE QUINTANA, in his individual capacity, BILL RAILEY, in his individual capacity, CHRIS WELDON, in his individual capacity, BENJAMIN SCHROEDER, in his individual capacity, GILBERTO LUCIO, in his individual capacity, JAMES DIXON, in his individual capacity, ADAM BARRETT, in his individual capacity, JOEL SMITH, in his individual capacity, JESSE REMBERT, in his individual capacity, JAY LOPEZ, in his individual capacity, MICHAEL O'NEILL, in his individual capacity, JEFFREY WATTS, in his individual capacity, ED GRUNINGER, in his individual capacity, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF DELTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, DARIN DESEL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual capacity, FRED MCKEE, Sheriff for the Delta Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, PERRY SPEELMAN, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual capacity, and UNKNOWN REPRESENTATIVE, Representative of Patricia Kramer's Estate, former Deputy District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, in her individual capacity, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
Table of Contents
+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Section                                         ¦Page No.¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦I. Summary of the Case                          ¦5       ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦A. Background fo State Court Proceedings        ¦5       ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦B. Background of Present Proceeding             ¦8       ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦II. Standard of Review                          ¦10      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦III. Analysis                                   ¦11      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦A. Defendant Kramer                             ¦12      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦B. Claim 1: Conspiracy and Malicious Prosecution¦13      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦1. Count 2: Malicious Prosecution in Case 99CR96¦        ¦
                ¦                                                ¦14      ¦
                ¦for Violation of Deferred Sentence (2006-2009)  ¦        ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦a. Fourth Amendment                             ¦14      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦b. Fourteenth Amendment: Substantive Due        ¦        ¦
                ¦                                                ¦16      ¦
                ¦Process                                         ¦        ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦i. Statute of Limitations                       ¦17      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦ii. Personal Participation                      ¦18      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦iii. Elements of a 14th Amendment               ¦        ¦
                ¦                                                ¦21      ¦
                ¦Malicious Prosecution Claim                     ¦        ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦(1) Continued Confinement                       ¦21      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦(2) Favorable Termination                       ¦22      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦(3) Probable Cause                              ¦24      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦(4) Malice                                      ¦28      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦iv. Damages                                     ¦29      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦v. Qualified Immunity                           ¦30      ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+--------¦
                ¦c. Fourteenth Amendment: Procedural             ¦        ¦
                ¦                                                ¦33      ¦
                ¦Due Process                                     ¦        ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------+
                ¦2. Count 1: Conspiracy to Maliciously Prosecute¦  ¦
                ¦                                               ¦35¦
                ¦Plaintiff from 2005-2010                       ¦  ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦a. 42 U.S.C. § 1983                            ¦35¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦b. 42 U.S.C. § 1985                            ¦38¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦c. 42 U.S.C. § 1986                            ¦40¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦C. Claim 4, Count 1: Monell Claim              ¦40¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦1. Individual Defendants                       ¦42¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦2. BOCC                                        ¦43¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦D. Injunctive Relief                           ¦45¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦E. Attorneys' Fees                             ¦46¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦F. Leave to Amend                              ¦47¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+--¦
                ¦IV. Conclusion                                 ¦49¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+
                

This matter is before the Court on the Delta Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 271; Filed February 6, 2012] (the "Joint Motion"), filed by Defendants Myrl Serra ("Serra"), Sherri Price ("Price"), Unknown Representative (Patricia Kramer estate) ("Kramer"), Fred McKee ("McKee"), Bill Railey ("Railey"), Chris Weldon ("Weldon"), Bea Wolfe ("Wolfe"),1 Benjamin Schroeder ("Schroeder"), and the Board of County Commissioners of Delta County ("BOCC") (collectively, the "Delta Defendants"); on the Delta Sheriff-Deputies' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 272; Filed February 6, 2012] (the "Sheriff-Deputies' Motion"), filed by Defendants McKee, Railey, Weldon, Wolfe, and Schroeder (collectively, the "Sheriff-Deputy Defendants"); on the Delta Prosecutors' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 273; Filed February 6, 2012] (the "Prosecutors' Motion"), filed by Defendants Serra, Price, and Kramer (collectively, the "Prosecutor Defendants"); and on the Board of County Commissioners of Delta County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 274; Filed February 6, 2012] ("BOCC's Motion"), filed by Defendant BOCC (collectively, the "Motions").2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D.C.Colo.LCivR 72.1C.3., the Motionshave been referred to this Court for recommendation [#275]. Plaintiff filed Responses to the Motions on March 22, 2012 [#303-05]. The Delta Defendants filed Replies to Plaintiff's Responses on April 19, 2012 [#327-30]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, Responses, Replies, and applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Prosecutors' Motion [#273] and BOCC's Motion [#274] be GRANTED and that the Joint Motion [#271] and Sheriff-Deputies' Motion [#273] be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as outlined below.

I. Summary of the Case3
A. Background of State Court Proceedings

Plaintiff is currently a state prisoner incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado. In 1999, Plaintiff was charged with sexual assault in the Delta County District Court. See People v. Carbajal, 198 P.3d 102, 104 (Colo. 2008). "In a plea deal resolving six cases from Delta, Montrose, and San Miguel counties, [Plaintiff] entered Alford pleas to sexual assault II, possession of a schedule II controlled substance and bail violation." Id. On August 30, 2001, the Delta County District Court sentenced Plaintiff to four years confinement and three years of mandatory parole for possession of a schedule II controlled substance. Id. Regarding the charge of sexual assault II, the courtimposed a deferred judgment with the statutory maximum of four years of supervision.4 Id.

Plaintiff was released from confinement on July 26, 2004 and began his mandatory three years of parole. Id. According to the Delta County District Court's order, his deferred judgment supervision began on that date and was to continue until July 26, 2008. Id. However, Plaintiff's parole was revoked on an unspecified date prior to late April 2006, and he was returned to confinement. Id. Plaintiff's violation of his parole was also a violation of the conditions of his deferred judgment supervision, and "on April 25, 2006, the People filed a petition to revoke [his] deferred judgment and impose a judgment and sentence." Id. After a hearing on July 14, 2006, the Delta County District Court ordered that Plaintiff's deferred judgment would not be revoked, but his four years of deferred judgment supervision would be "restarted," i.e., his deferred judgment supervision would run from July 14, 2006 through July 14, 2010.5 Id.

On April 26, 2007, the People filed a second petition to revoke Plaintiff's deferredjudgment.6 Id. at 105. The Delta County District Court set a hearing on the petition; Plaintiff failed to appear, so the court issued a warrant for his arrest. Id. On August 22, 2007, the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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