2016 COA 32
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Inmate Keith Brooks filed numerous grievances; DOC Reg. 850-04 authorizes warnings and progressive restrictions for filing "frivolous" grievances (60 days first, then 180, 1 year, indefinite).
- On May 8, 2011, officials imposed a 60-day restriction after finding Brooks filed multiple frivolous grievances.
- After the May restriction expired, Brooks filed more grievances; on September 7, 2011, officials imposed a 180-day restriction, finding he filed 14 frivolous grievances since May.
- Brooks sued in district court within weeks of the September restriction, alleging defendants exceeded jurisdiction (May restriction) and abused discretion (Sept. restriction).
- The district court treated the DOC restrictions as quasi-judicial and upheld both restrictions; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grievance-restriction decisions are quasi-judicial | Brooks: decisions are reviewable under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) | Defs: restrictions are not quasi-judicial and thus not subject to 106 review | Court: Restrictions under Reg. 850-04 are quasi-judicial and reviewable under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) |
| Timeliness / jurisdiction to review May 8, 2011 restriction | Brooks: district court could review May restriction | Defs: 106(b) deadline bars late challenges | Court: May restriction was final on May 8; complaint filed too late; district court lacked jurisdiction; portion vacated |
| Whether Sept. 7, 2011 restriction was an abuse of discretion | Brooks: restriction was unsupported and procedurally improper | Defs: record supports finding of multiple frivolous grievances and regulation allows immediate escalation | Court: Some evidence supports frivolousness; no abuse of discretion; Sept. 7 restriction affirmed |
| Due process claim | Brooks: deprivation of grievance access violated due process | Defs: no protected liberty interest in prison grievance procedure; regulation complied with process | Court: No protected liberty interest; even if state-created interest existed, procedure met regulation; due process claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., 757 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1988) (focus on nature/process to determine quasi-judicial action)
- Lake Durango Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 P.3d 12 (Colo. 2003) (decision is quasi-judicial when it applies pre-existing standards to facts)
- Wallin v. Cosner, 210 P.3d 479 (Colo. App. 2009) (CRCP 106(b) time limit is jurisdictional)
- Baker v. City of Dacono, 928 P.2d 826 (Colo. App. 1996) (finality triggers 106(b) limitations period)
- Phillips v. Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep't of Corr., 251 P.3d 1176 (Colo. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion review; courts uphold agency action if supported by some evidence)