Harrison v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 16 March 2000 |
| Citation | Harrison v. Wilson, 998 P.2d 1110 (Colo. App. 2000) |
| Docket Number | 99CA0608 |
| Parties | Thurman HARRISON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William WILSON, Warden, Bent County Correctional Facility, Steven Brown, Jr., Deputy Warden, Bent County Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Thurman Harrison, Jr., Pro Se.
No Appearance for Defendants-Appellees.
Opinion by Judge DAILEY.
In this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action, plaintiff, Thurman Harrison, Jr., an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC), appeals from the district court judgment dismissing his complaint seeking judicial review of a prison disciplinary matter. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The district court initially dismissed plaintiff's complaint as untimely, ruling that the complaint had been filed beyond the thirty-day period set forth in C.R.C.P. 106(b). Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that his complaint had been timely filed on an earlier date.
In considering this motion, the district court reviewed plaintiff's indigency status. The court had previously granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). However, based on a printout of plaintiff's inmate account over the preceding year, the district court ruled that plaintiff was "not indigent." In this regard, the court noted that there had been sufficient deposits made to plaintiff's account over that year to pay the filing fees and costs of this action. On this basis, the district court denied plaintiff's IFP motion and ruled that "the order of dismissal stands."
We agree with plaintiff that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as being untimely filed.
As noted by the district court, the challenged action of the DOC officials occurred on January 7, 1999. Contrary to the district court's ruling, however, the record shows that plaintiff's complaint was timely filed on January 21, 1999, rather than on February 11, 1999.
Plaintiff established the earlier filing date in his motion for reconsideration, attached to which was a copy of his complaint, date stamped as having been filed in the district court on January 21, 1999. Because the record demonstrates that the complaint was in fact timely filed within the thirty day time limit of C.R.C.P. 106(b), the district court erred in dismissing it as untimely. See also Fraser v. Colorado Board of Parole, 931 P.2d 560 (Colo.App.1996) ().
We also agree with plaintiff that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint based on its re-determination of his IFP status.
Although a court generally has discretion to waive an indigent litigant's filing fees pursuant to § 13-16-103, C.R.S.1999, additional provisions specifically governing IFP proceedings in civil actions brought by inmates are set forth in § 13-17.5-103, C.R.S.1999. Section 13-17.5-103, as amended in 1998 and applicable here, now provides that:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
06CA0265
...Whether oral or written, judicial admissions are conclusive on the party making them. Holiday Acres Property Owners Ass'n v. Wise, 998 P.2d at 1110. Admissions by an attorney in closing arguments that are unequivocal and relate to a question of fact will be binding on the party. Larson v. A......
-
Marymee v. Exec. Dir. of the Colo. Dep't of Corr.
...13–17.5–103, C.R.S.2013, one of several related statutes enacted to address inmate civil actions. Id.; see also Harrison v. Wilson, 998 P.2d 1110, 1111–12 (Colo.App.2000). ¶ 8 Section 13–17.5–103(1), C.R.S.2013, states: An inmate who seeks to proceed in any civil action without prepayment o......
-
Gengerke v Dep't of Rev
...notwithstanding alleged deficiency in claimant’s failure to designate filing as “petition for review”); see also Harrison v. Wilson, 998 P.2d 1110, 1111 (Colo. App. 2000)(reversing the district court’s dismissal for failure to file complaint within thirty days as required by C.R.C.P. 106(b)......
-
Collins v. Jaquez
...is limited by § 13-17.5-103, one of several related statutes enacted in 1995 to address inmate civil actions. See Harrison v. Wilson, 998 P.2d 1110 (Colo.App.2000). The version of § 13-17.5-103 in effect when plaintiff filed his complaint in 1997 Any inmate who files a motion to proceed as ......