Parker v. Maus

• Decision Date: 16 August 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11-cv-01777-REB-CBS
• Parties: TRENTON H. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL S. MAUS, individually and in his official capacity; ELIZABETH B. STROBEL, individually and in her official capacity; BRUCE T. BARKER, individually and in his official capacity; STEPHANIE L. ARRIES, individually and in her official capacity; JOHN COOKE, individually and in his official capacity; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, and In Re Case No. 07-CV-189 AND Case No. 11-CV-19, IN WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

TRENTON H. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL S. MAUS, individually and in his official capacity ELIZABETH B. STROBEL, individually and in her official capacity BRUCE T. BARKER, individually and in his official capacity STEPHANIE L. ARRIES, individually and in her official capacity JOHN COOKE, individually and in his official capacity; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO,¹ and In Re Case No. 07-CV-189 AND Case No. 11-CV-19, IN WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01777-REB-CBS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

DATED: August 16, 2012

RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ON PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Magistrate Judge Shaffer

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Defendants Barker, Arries and Cooke's (hereinafter the "County Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (doc. #25), filed on December 30, 2011, and Defendants Maus and Strobel's (hereinafter the "State Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (doc. #28), filed on January 3, 2012. Pursuant to Minute Orders issued by this court on December 20, 2011 and January 4, 2012 (doc. ##27 and 29), Mr. Parker was instructed to file his responses to the above motions on or beforeJanuary 31, 2012.

On January 30, 2012, Mr. Parker moved "For an Extension of Time to File Responses to 'Motions to Dismiss' for Good Cause" (doc. # 31), seeking an additional 20 days "to respond to the Motions to Dismiss." Plaintiff acknowledged that separate motions had been filed by the Colorado Attorney General on behalf of Defendants Maus and Strobel and by the law firm of Hall & Evans, LLC, on behalf of Defendants Barker, Arries and Cooke. I granted Plaintiff's request for extension of time and on January 31, 2012 issued a Minute Order (doc. #34) setting a new response date of February 21, 2012 for both motions. That deadline passed without Mr. Parker filing the required responses.

On March 30, 2012, Mr. Parker filed a Motion to Allow Late Response for Good Cause (doc. #35). This motion sought leave to file "the attached late 'Response' to the Colorado Attorney General's (CAG) Motions to Dismiss," claiming that Mr. Parker had contracted "a serious case of the new strain of pulmonary influenza, which caused the Plaintiff to become incapacitated" for four weeks. Attached to this Motion to Allow Late Response was Plaintiff's "Response to Colorado Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss Suit Against Colorado Judges." On April 12, 2012, after hearing no opposition from the State Defendants, I accepted for filing Mr. Parker's Response to Colorado Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss Suit Against Colorado Judges (doc. #39).² Defendants Maus and Strobel filed a Reply in Support of Motionto Dismiss Amended Complaint (doc. #41) on April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge (doc. #2), dated July 8, 2011, and the memoranda dated December 30, 2011 and January 4, 2012 (doc. ##26 and 29), the foregoing motions were referred to the Magistrate Judge. I have carefully reviewed the pending motions to dismiss and related briefing, taken judicial notice of the court's entire file and considered the applicable case law. For the following reasons, I conclude that the motions to dismiss should be granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The pro se Plaintiff, Trenton Parker, commenced this litigation on July 6, 2011 against "Defendant Daniel S. Maus . . . a district court judge of Weld County, Colorado; Bruce T. Barker . . . the Weld County Attorney; Stephanie Arries . . . an Assistant Weld County Attorney; [and] John Cook[e] . . . the Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado." The original Complaint asserted that the action "arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983" based on alleged violations of "Plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." Mr. Parker asserted that Defendants Maus, Barker and Arries committed constitutional violations when they

intentionally, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights, subjected the Plaintiff to the following events, wrongs, torts, and orders during and following a two day contempt of court hearing which took place on June 24th and 25th of 2009, with the final court Order and determination of said trial executed and issued by Defendant Maus on July 9, 2009.

See Complaint, at ¶ 8.

According to the Complaint, Mr. Parker was arrested on June 24, 2009 for "unspecified'Weld County Zoning Codes' on ranch property which the Plaintiff did not own." Id. at ¶ 9A. Mr. Parker contends he was forced to "undergo a QUICK 'trial by the court' . . . which took place in the Weld County District Court on the morning of June 24, 2009," in violation of the Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. Id. at ¶ 9C. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Maus never advised him of his rights or of the specific charges brought against him, denied him "the right to a jury trial," denied him the right "to contact and call witnesses in his defense," and denied his request for a continuance for purpose of consulting with his court-appointed counsel. Id. at ¶¶ 9E-H. At the conclusion of the trial on June 25, 2009, Defendant Maus found Mr. Parker guilty "of some unspecified zoning code violations" and sentenced Plaintiff to immediately serve a 90-day sentence in the Weld County Jail. Id. at ¶¶ 9J-K. Mr. Parker concedes that he did not appeal this conviction to the Colorado Court of Appeals, but blames that omission on the lack of adequate legal resources in the Weld County Jail. Id. at ¶¶ 9M-N. Plaintiff contends that "Defendant Cooke's jail management policy, has the clear net affect of depriving his jail's inmates of any possible meaningful access to the courts. . . . in violation of the Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law." Id. at ¶ 9N.

In the wake of motions to dismiss filed by the County Defendants and Defendant Maus on July 28, 2011 (see doc. ##3 and 8), I directed Mr. Parker to filed responses on or before August 19, 2011. When Mr. Parker failed to meet that deadline, this court issued an Order to Show Cause (doc. #15) on October 24, 2011, directing Plaintiff to show cause on or before November 8, 2011 why this civil action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, the Local Rules of Practice of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Colorado, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 25, 2011, Mr. Parker filed a Late Answer and Motion to Amend Original Complaint for Cause (doc. #16). In this filing, Mr. Parker explained that he "quite simply, ran out of money and needed to come up with a plan to raise capital to continue this litigation and other related activities." Mr. Parker further stated that he

need[ed] time to do substantial legal research which has been completed. Plaintiff freely admits that the Plaintiff's Complaint is replete with errors. Furthermore, Colorado's and Hall & Evans' list of errors enumerated and contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint are more or less correct and need to be addressed by way of revision and clarification. It is for those reasons the Plaintiff needs time to amend the Plaintiff's Complaint so as to be able to address and remedy each and every objection set forth by the Defendants.

Id. at ¶ 3. Although Mr. Parker offered a number of excuses for not responding to the pending motions to dismiss,³ his Motion to Amend Original Complaint for Cause was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. At the conclusion of a status conference on December 1, 2011, Mr. Parker was given until December 9, 2011 to file a proposed amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed the current Amended Complaint (doc. # 23) on December 9, 2011. That pleading retained the original defendants and added Defendant Elizabeth Strobel, who was identified as a District Court Judge in Weld County, Colorado, and the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that"for a period covering twelve (12) years, he has been subjected to and made to suffer an ongoing and continuous loss and abuse of his constitutional rights at the hands of the Weld County Commissioners and various Weld county employees." See Amended Complaint, at ¶ 8. Echoing the allegations in the original Complaint, Mr. Parker again contends that Defendants Maus, Strobel, Baker and Arries intentionally, knowingly and recklessly violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mr. Parker also renews his assertion that Defendant Cooke's jail management policies violated his constitutional right of access to the courts.

The Amended Complaint provides additional background information to place the foregoing claims in context. It is alleged that in 1997, Mr. Parker and other individuals and companies conceived of a plan to develop a series of equestrian campgrounds to be located in Costilla County, Colorado, and created West World U.S.A., Inc., a Colorado corporation, to facilitate their business plan. In 2000, after some unforeseen circumstances, West World, U.S.A. joined with another entity to purchase 90 acres of ranch land ("The Ranch Property") in Weld County, Colorado. There followed litigation between Weld County and various parties involved with The Ranch Property. On February 23, 2007, Weld County filed a lawsuit, Case No. 07-CV-189, against Mr. Parker and Land Home Development Company relating to The Ranch Property and alleged zoning violations. According to Mr. Parker, Defendant Arries represented Weld County in Case No. 07-CV-189. At some point, Defendant Maus, the presiding judge in Case No. 07-CB-189 entered a default judgment in favor of Weld County. Judge Maus...