Reynolds v. Flynn

• Decision Date: 27 January 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-cv-01154-RM-NYW
• Parties: MICHELLE REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN FLYNN, Chief Judge of the Twenty-First Judicial District, in his individual capacity; JOE PELLE, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff; and MATT LEWIS, in his official capacity as Mesa County Sheriff, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

MICHELLE REYNOLDS, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN FLYNN, Chief Judge of the Twenty-First Judicial District, in his individual capacity; JOE PELLE, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff; and MATT LEWIS, in his official capacity as Mesa County Sheriff, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01154-RM-NYW

United States District Court, D. Colorado

January 27, 2022

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NINA Y. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This matter is before this court on three pending motions:

(1) Defendant Matt Lewis' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P 12(b)(6) (the “Lewis Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc 61, filed August 27, 2021]

(2) Defendant Joe Pelle's Motion to Dismiss (the “Pelle Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc. 62, filed August 27, 2021]; and

(3) Defendant Flynn's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (the “Flynn Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc 63, filed August 27, 2021] (collectively, the “Motions” or “Motions to Dismiss”).

This court considers the Motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Order Referring Case dated July 2, 2021 [Doc. 25], and the Memorandum dated September 10, 2021 [Doc. 64]. The court concludes that oral argument will not materially assist in the resolution of these matters. Accordingly, upon review of the Motions, their respective briefing, and the applicable case law, I

1

respectfully RECOMMEND that (1) the Lewis Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; (2) the Pelle Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and (3) the Flynn Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This court draws the following facts from Plaintiff Michelle Reynolds' First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (the “Amended Complaint”) [Doc. 95]^[1] and presumes they are true for purposes of the Motions to Dismiss. Relevant here, Defendant Brian Flynn (“Defendant Flynn” or “Judge Flynn”), the Chief Judge of Colorado's Twenty-First Judicial District in Mesa County, Colorado, issued Administrative Order 2018-07 (the “Administrative Order”) to “establish[] a uniform procedure for the 21st Judicial District on how to process out-of-county [arrest] warrants.” [Doc. 95 at ¶¶ 10, 29-30]. The Administrative Order instructed Mesa County judges to not modify a defendant's bond when a defendant appears in Mesa County Court on an out-of-county arrest warrant. [Id. at ¶¶ 29, 32]. The Administrative Order did not instruct Mesa County judges that they must provide detainees with notice of the Administrative Order either prior to the detainee's first appearance or at the detainee's first appearance. [Id. at ¶ 32]. Further, the Administrative Order suggested, citing People v. Garcia, 746 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1987), that a court has no authority to set a bond in cases in which a detainee is held on an out-of-county warrant. [Id. at ¶ 33]. According to Plaintiff, the Administrative Order was issued in response to the Mesa County Sheriff's Office's decisions to (1) take defendants held in custody on out-of-county arrest warrants to the nearest county court and (2) assume joint responsibility with the jurisdiction which issued

2

the warrant for transportation of the defendant, but permit such transport to be conducted as far out as 14 days after the defendant's arrest. [Id. at ¶ 31].

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Michelle Reynolds (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Reynolds”) was pulled over by the Colorado State Patrol. [Id. at ¶ 14]. Unbeknownst to Ms. Reynolds, at the time she was pulled over, there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest “regarding an incident from October 2018, ” which had been issued by a Boulder County court. [Id. at ¶¶ 15-16]. The warrant stated: “no bond pending first appearance in court.” [Id. at ¶ 17]. Ms. Reynolds was arrested on the warrant and booked into the Mesa County Detention Facility (“MCDF”). [Id. at ¶ 18].

The Colorado State Patrol informed the Boulder County Sheriff's Office that Ms. Reynolds had been arrested on a Boulder County warrant and instructed the Boulder County Sheriff's Office that “it needed to extradite Ms. Reynolds.” [Id. at ¶ 19]. In addition, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office asked the Boulder County Sheriff's Office “to make transport arrangements with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office.” [Id. at ¶ 20]. Both the Boulder County Sheriff's Office and the Mesa County Sheriff's Office “received messages indicating that” the affidavit accompanying Ms. Reynolds's arrest warrant stated that there would be “no bond until seen by judicial officer.” [Id. at ¶ 21].

On August 27, 2019, Ms. Reynolds appeared by video at an advisement hearing in Mesa County Court. [Id. at ¶ 36]. Ms. Reynolds did not receive clear and advanced notice of the hearing; was not informed of the purpose of the hearing or that she was being held on a “no-bond” warrant; and was not informed that it was the Mesa County Court's policy “to not modify or set bail for out-of-county warrants.” [Id. at ¶ 37]. At the hearing, the Mesa County Court judge did not inform Ms. Reynolds of the nature of the charges against her; her right to bail; or the existence of the Administrative Order. [Id. at ¶ 39]. Additionally, Ms. Reynolds was appointed counsel only “a

3

few moments” before the hearing, which deprived Ms. Reynolds of the opportunity to consult with counsel or present any evidence or argument in support of setting bail. [Id. at ¶ 40].

The judge at Ms. Reynolds's advisement hearing did not set a bond at the hearing, instead advising Ms. Reynolds that she was being held pursuant to a “no bond” warrant and that Boulder County was responsible for her transportation to Boulder County. [Id. at ¶ 42]. Moreover, the judge did not conduct an individualized assessment as to Ms. Reynolds or make any factual findings as to whether Ms. Reynolds's continued detention was necessary. [Id. at ¶ 41]. In all, the hearing lasted fewer than two minutes. [Id. at ¶ 38]. According to Plaintiff, because Ms. Reynolds “did not receive a prompt bond setting, ” she was “required to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period of time until she could appear before the Boulder County Court.” [Id. at ¶ 45].

While at MCDF, Ms. Reynolds made daily requests and submitted numerous kites asking to be transported to Boulder County. [Id. at ¶ 47]. In addition, Ms. Reynolds's defense attorney made numerous phone calls to the transport departments of the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and the Boulder County Sheriff's Office requesting that Ms. Reynolds immediately be transported to Boulder County. [Id. at ¶¶ 4, 48]. Despite Ms. Reynolds's and her attorney's requests, and although both the Boulder County Sheriff's Office and the Mesa County Sheriff's Office knew that Ms. Reynolds was being held in the MCDF on an out-of-county warrant with no bond and would need to be transported to Boulder County, Ms. Reynolds was not transported. [Id. at ¶ 46].

On August 28, 2019, the Mesa County Sheriff's Office again notified the Boulder County Sheriff's Office that Ms. Reynolds needed to be transported to Boulder County. [Id. at ¶ 50]. This same day, Ms. Reynolds's defense counsel spoke with the Boulder County Sheriff's Office Transport Coordinator, Amanda Pelletier (“Ms. Pelletier”) about the need for Ms. Reynolds's immediate transport. [Id. at ¶¶ 48, 51]. Ms. Pelletier then contacted the Mesa County Sheriff's

4

Office Transport Coordinator, Carla Dittman (“Ms. Dittman”), about Ms. Reynolds's transport; Ms. Dittman responded that she would coordinate transportation for the following week. [Id. at ¶¶ 53-54]. According to Plaintiff, “Ms. Pelletier tacitly agreed to not arrange transportation and, instead, wait for Ms. Dittman to plan transportation at some point the following week, ” did not push back on the proposed timing, and did not coordinate transportation for an earlier time. [Id. at ¶ 55]. On August 30, 2019, Ms. Dittman informed Ms. Pelletier that Ms. Reynolds would be transferred to Boulder Count on September 5, 2019, but no one informed Ms. Reynolds or her attorney of this plan. [Id. at ¶¶ 57-58].

Around this time, Ms. Reynolds's counsel contacted the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and the Boulder County Sheriff's Office and asked about Ms. Reynolds's transport, but counsel was not given any information due to a “security concern.” [Id. at ¶ 60]. On September 3, 2019, an unnamed person in the Mesa County Sheriff's Office responded to a kite submitted by Ms. Reynolds, stating that Boulder County was aware that Ms. Reynolds needed to be transported, but the person did not know when Ms. Reynolds would be transported. [Id. at ¶ 61]. Ms. Reynolds was transported to “the Boulder jail” on September 5, 2019 and appeared before “a Boulder judge” on September 6, 2019. [Id. at ¶¶ 66-67]. Ms. Reynolds was released on a personal recognizance bond and her criminal case was dismissed on September 19, 2019. [Id. at ¶¶ 69-70]. Ms. Reynolds alleges that while she was confined at MCDF, she was physically assaulted “multiple times.” [Id. at ¶ 73]. In addition, Ms. Reynolds lost her job while she was confined. [Id. at ¶ 72]. Ms. Reynolds suffered “fear and hopelessness at her seemingly endless incarceration” and “continues to suffer distress from her experience.” [Id. at ¶ 74].

Plaintiff initiated this civil action on April 27, 2021 against Judge Flynn, Defendant Joe Pelle, the Boulder County Sheriff (“Defendant Pelle” or “Sheriff Pelle”), and Defendant Matt

5

Lewis, the Mesa County Sheriff (“Defendant Lewis” or “Sheriff Lewis”). See generally [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint on August 3, 2021, [Doc. 44], which this court construed as an amendment as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Sheriff Lewis and Judge Flynn and as an unopposed motion to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) as to Sheriff Pelle. [Doc. 59].^[2] In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises the following claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C...