Adams v. Sagee
2017 COA 133
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Adams, Ernest Vigil, and Phyllis Vigil circulated an initiative in Sheridan; the City Clerk rejected enough signatures that the initiative fell short.
- Plaintiffs protested; after an internal protest hearing the Clerk upheld the signature rejections (final administrative decision).
- Plaintiffs filed a district-court complaint seeking judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) 35 days after the Clerk’s final decision.
- Rule 106(b) requires filing within 28 days (jurisdictional); plaintiffs conceded they filed late but argued the deadline was unconstitutional as applied because it curtailed their initiative right.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Rule 106(b)’s deadline constitutionally permissible as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying C.R.C.P. 106(b)’s 28‑day jurisdictional filing deadline to challengers of an initiative decision unconstitutionally burdens the constitutional right of initiative | Applying the deadline to pro se initiative proponents effectively narrows their constitutional initiative right and is therefore unconstitutional as applied | The 28‑day jurisdictional deadline is neutral and generally applicable; pro se status does not excuse compliance; the deadline does not unduly burden the initiative right | Court held the deadline is constitutional as applied; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se litigants are not excused from procedural rules)
- Danielson v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 807 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1991) (failure to meet Rule 106 time limit deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Van Sickle v. Boyes, 797 P.2d 1267 (Colo. 1990) (Rule 106(a)(4) abuse‑of‑discretion standard does not deny due process)
- People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1993) (reasonable time limits may be imposed on habeas relief)
- Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1994) (initiative provisions are to be liberally construed)