Farrow v. CDOC
23CA1072
| Colo. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2024Background
- Michael Farrow, a Colorado inmate, sought judicial review of a 2018 prison disciplinary action for 'failure to work.'
- Farrow filed a complaint under C.R.C.P. 106.5 in December 2018 challenging the disciplinary conviction.
- This marks Farrow’s third appeal regarding the same disciplinary action, with earlier district court dismissals reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals for procedural errors.
- On remand, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute after Farrow did not file a required brief, but failed to provide the mandated notice or opportunity to respond.
- Farrow moved for relief under C.R.C.P. 60, arguing lack of proper notice and that he had filed (but the court did not receive) a timely motion for extension, and that he was unaware of the dismissal order.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal for procedural noncompliance and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was dismissal for failure to prosecute proper without prior notice? | Farrow: No notice or chance to respond before dismissal | CDOC: Dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances | No, district court erred by not providing 35 days’ written notice or opportunity to show cause |
| Was the notice of appeal timely? | Farrow: Appeal was timely from the signed May 17 order | CDOC: Clock started from Oct. 5 minute order (unsigned) | Notice of appeal timely; final order was the signed May 17 order |
| Did the district court follow appellate remand instructions? | Farrow: Court did not follow proper procedures as directed | CDOC: Procedures were sufficient | District court failed to comply with required procedures before dismissal |
| Was error in handling Farrow’s motions relevant to appeal? | Farrow: Court failed to rule on pending motions | CDOC: Not directly argued | Not resolved; will be addressed on remand as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Koh v. Kumar, 207 P.3d 900 (Colo. App. 2009) (mandatory notice requirements before dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Streu v. City of Colorado Springs ex rel. Colo. Springs Utils., 239 P.3d 1264 (Colo. 2010) (court must provide notice and opportunity to show cause before dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Maxwell v. W.K.A. Inc., 728 P.2d 321 (Colo. App. 1986) (violation of notice requirements warrants relief from judgment)