Frederickson v. Larimer Cnty. (Code Compliance)
| Decision Date | 15 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-cv-00262-CNS-MDB |
| Parties | REX A. FREDERICKSON, Plaintiff, v. LARIMER COUNTY (CODE COMPLIANCE), CHAD GREY (BUILDING AND CODE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR), MICHAEL J. WEISS, and other unknown actors or conspirators, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on “Defendants Larimer County (Code Compliance) and Chad Grey (Building and Code Compliance Coordinator)'s Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.” ([“Motion”], Doc. No. 44.) Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the Motion, and Defendants have replied.[1]([“Response”], Doc. No. 49; [“Reply”], Doc. No. 54.) The Motion has been referred to the undersigned, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1, for a recommendation regarding disposition. (Doc. No. 46; see Doc. No 60.) The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing, the case file, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion (Doc. No. 44) be GRANTED.
The Court is recommending that your claims against Larimer County (Code Compliance) and Chad Grey be dismissed. First Larimer County Code Compliance Unit is not a separate body that can be sued. Second, to the extent you are asserting claims against Larimer County, the law requires identification of a county policy or practice that caused the alleged injuries, but your complaint does not identify any such policy or practice. Third, and to the extent you are claiming a violation of due process rights, the Court is recommending dismissal of those claims, because your complaint does not identify a liberty or property interest that is protected by the United States Constitution. Fourth, the Court is recommending that the remainder of your claims against Chad Grey and Larimer County (Code Compliance) be dismissed, because the law requires pleading more than what your complaint pleads here.
However the Court is recommending that some of your claims be dismissed without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice would allow you to amend your complaint, if you have sufficient information with which to amend. This is only a summary of the Court's Recommendation to the presiding judge. The complete Recommendation is set forth below, including information about your right to object to this Recommendation within a set period of time.
According to the Third Amended Complaint, pro se Plaintiff Rex A. Frederickson [“Mr. Frederickson”] is a Colorado citizen who, on account of a prior criminal conviction, must register as a sex offender under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act [“ISORA”], 730 ILCS 150/1 et seq., and the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act [“CSORA”], Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-22-101 et seq.. (Doc. No. 41 at ¶¶ 6, 13, 15-17.)
ISORA and CSORA obligate Mr. Frederickson to periodically reregister as a sex offender. (Id.) In the event that Mr. Frederickson “lacks a fixed residence,” ISORA and CSORA require that he report to local law enforcement, in person, at least every three months. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.) Mr. Frederickson claims to have a “fundamental liberty interest” in being able to fulfill his sex offender registration obligations “accurately and timely,” so that he “may avoid arrest.” (Id. at ¶ 25.)
Mr. Frederickson alleges that he currently resides in Wellington, Colorado, where he works from his rental home as the Marketing and Programing Director and morning DJ of a Chicago-based radio station. (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 35.) He alleges that he “depends on the security and stability of his domicile to ensure continued and uninterrupted service to the network” to be able to perform his job. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
Mr. Frederickson complains that, notwithstanding his need for stable housing to be able to work and avoid arrest, “Defendants,” together with other “unknown actors or conspirators,” have engaged in a multi-year “campaign” to deprive him of a place to live by means of “threat, extortion, and harassment.” (Id. at ¶¶ 20, 28, 30, 32, 34-36.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that Defendants' actions have resulted in his eviction “not once but twice at 2 separate locations,” and he claims that Defendants are “threatening to do so yet a third time, at [his] current abode.” (Id. at ¶ 1.)
Specifically, Mr. Frederickson alleges that, on September 30, 2020, the Larimer County Building and Code Compliance Coordinator, Defendant Chad Grey, “[t]hreatened to knock down buildings” that Mr. Frederickson erected on his landlord's property located at 2020 N. Collage Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 21.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that Defendant Grey made “false statements and claims” to the landlord that Mr. Frederickson “was not allowed to be on the property,” even though the Larimer County Sheriff had previously “certified and physically verified” that Mr. Frederickson was a “legal occupant” of the rental property. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 7, 21.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that Defendant Grey explicitly threatened to “inconvenience” his landlord, unless the landlord “complied with Chad Greys [sic] Demands,” and “forced [Mr. Frederickson] to move.” (Id. at ¶ 21.) Mr. Frederickson further alleges that Defendant Grey “threatened to tow the property of Mr. Frederickson if Mr. Frederickson did not comply.” (Id.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that he was ultimately “forced to relocate from 2020 N Collage Ave.... due to the combined efforts and conspiracy by the Defendants,” despite “having rented and used the property in a lawful manner.” (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 28.)
Mr. Frederickson further alleges that, after he then moved to a second rental property located at 603 W. Willox in Fort Collins, Colorado, on December 7, 2020, nonparty Dustin Kenneth[2] “called Chad Grey on the phone and reported that Mr. Frederickson was living illegally at the location[.]” (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 33.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that Defendant Grey then “threaten[ed]” to “fine” the second landlord, unless and until the landlord took “legal action to evict Mr. Frederickson” from the 603 W. Willox property. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Mr. Frederickson alleges that Defendant Grey once again “legally challenged and outrageously claimed” that Mr. Frederickson “was not allowed to be on the property,” which Mr. Frederickson insists was “[c]ontrary to the verification by the Larimer County Sheriff[.]” (Id. at ¶¶ 23, 26.) According to the Third Amended Complaint, “due to the combined efforts and conspiracy by the Defendants,” Mr. Frederickson was forced to relocate from the second rental property as well. (Id. at ¶ 30.)
Mr. Frederickson laments that his “reality has been turned upside down” by these events. (Id. at ¶ 8.) He alleges that “Defendants” continue to “harass” him at his current rental home. (Id. at ¶ 35.) He claims to live “in constant fear of harassment,” as well as in “imminent fear of losing his home and possessions.” (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10.) He also claims to live in fear of arrest for violating state sex offender registration laws. (Id. at ¶ 26.) He alleges numerous “harms and injuries” arising from Defendants' “abuse of the[ir] official positions,” including “financial stress, loss of work, loss of investments, loss of sleep, deprived of general feeling of peace, damage to equipment, emotional distress, fear of homelessness, [and] fear to leave his property unattended[.]” (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 17(f).)
Based on these allegations, on January 31, 2022, Mr. Frederickson commenced this federal court action by filing a pro se complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Mr. Frederickson thereafter amended his pleading, on February 16, 2022 (see Doc. No. 22), and again, on May 2, 2022, ultimately asserting ten claims against the named Defendants and “other unknown actors and conspirators.” (Doc. No. 41 at ¶¶ 18-36.) Although Mr. Frederickson organizes his Third Amended Complaint into ten separate causes of action, the claims involve overlapping factual allegations and legal theories. Mr. Frederickson alleges violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 41 at ¶¶ 1, 18-20, 22, 24, 27-31, 34.) In addition, Mr. Frederickson alleges violations of his statutory rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 18, 22, 24, 29, 31, 34.) Finally, Mr. Frederickson alleges violations of Colorado state law. (Id. at ¶ 36.) In the Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Frederickson requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. (Id. at 16-17.)
Defendants Larimer County (Code Compliance) and Chad Grey now move to dismiss Mr. Frederickson's claims against them, in their entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 44 at 1.) In their Motion, Defendants make five arguments: (1) that the Larimer County Code Compliance Unit is not a suable entity; (2) that Mr. Frederickson has failed to state a cognizable Monell claim against Larimer County; (3) that all of Mr. Frederickson's claims are inadequately pleaded; (4) that Mr. Frederickson has failed to establish that he was “deprived of property” without due process; and (5) that Chad Grey is entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims. (Id. at 3.)
Mr Frederickson is proceeding pro se. The Court, therefore, “review[s] his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold[s] them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial