2014 COA 38
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mental health counselor requested a welfare check for Steven Bleck, who was intoxicated, suicidal, and possibly armed in a hotel room. Four officers, including Officer Martínez, entered Bleck’s room; Bleck did not follow commands and officers could not see his hands. Martínez’s firearm accidentally discharged, injuring Bleck.
- Bleck sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and alleged a municipal failure-to-train claim; the District Court dismissed the § 1983 claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state battery, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim.
- Bleck then filed a state-law battery claim against Officer Martínez in Colorado district court alleging willful and wanton conduct by Martínez.
- Martínez moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (5), asserting qualified immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) and arguing federal rulings precluded a willful/wanton finding. The trial court denied the motion, finding Bleck had pleaded willful and wanton conduct and factual disputes existed.
- Martínez appealed the denial; the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of a motion contesting willful and wanton conduct (qualified immunity) is not immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Bleck (Plaintiff) Argument | Martínez (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a pretrial motion challenging willful and wanton conduct (qualified immunity) is immediately appealable | Bleck argued the complaint adequately pleaded willful and wanton conduct so CDJ lacked grounds to dismiss | Martínez argued denial was appealable because he brought the motion under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and facts are undisputed | Held: Not appealable; qualified immunity is a defense to liability, not a jurisdictional bar, so interlocutory appeal is unavailable |
| Whether undisputed facts create an exception allowing interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity | Bleck relied on CGIA scheme and precedent distinguishing sovereign vs. qualified immunity to argue no exception exists | Martínez claimed Brace permits interlocutory appeal where no disputed material facts on willful/wanton conduct exist | Held: No exception — Brace does not convert qualified immunity into a jurisdictional bar even if facts are undisputed |
| Sufficiency of pleading willful and wanton conduct under § 24-10-110(5)(b) | Bleck maintained his complaint pleaded a specific factual basis for willful and wanton conduct | Martínez argued pleading was inadequate and dismissal should follow | Held: Trial court properly found the complaint adequate; such a ruling is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1996) (employee qualified immunity is a defense to liability and does not permit interlocutory appeal)
- Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs. for Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386 (Colo. 2002) (distinguishes sovereign immunity jurisdictional bar from employee qualified immunity)
- Gray v. Univ. of Colo. Hosp. Auth., 284 P.3d 191 (Colo. App. 2012) (discussed but found to be dicta on interlocutory appeal issue)
- Awad v. Breeze, 129 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2005) (ruling that adequacy of pleading willful and wanton conduct is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal)
- Richardson v. Starks, 36 P.3d 168 (Colo. App. 2001) (same)
- Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1996) (denial of summary judgment is not an appealable interlocutory order)