Farrow v. CDOC, 23CA1072

Michael Farrow, a Colorado inmate, sought judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106.5 of a 2018 prison disciplinary action for failure to work.
This was his third appeal after previous district court dismissals; both prior appeals resulted in remands for further proceedings.
On remand, the district court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute after Farrow missed a briefing deadline, but did so via an unsigned minute order.
Farrow argued he never received notice of dismissal, requested an extension, and later moved for relief under C.R.C.P. 60, but the district court denied his motion.
The appeal challenged both the October 5, 2022 minute order of dismissal and the final May 17, 2023 written order denying relief.
The appellate court reversed, finding that required procedures for notice before dismissal for failure to prosecute were not followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was dismissal for failure to prosecute proper without 35 days' written notice?	Farrow argued he was not given proper notice or a chance to show cause before dismissal.	Defendants contended Farrow failed to meet briefing deadlines, justifying dismissal.	Dismissal reversible error; no 35-day notice or opportunity given as required.
Was the notice of appeal timely given the unsigned minute order?	Farrow argued the signed order, not the earlier unsigned minute order, triggered appeal period.	Defendants claimed the minute order triggered the 49-day appeal clock.	Held notice of appeal was timely; only a written, signed order is final.
Should Farrow's Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment be denied?	Farrow claimed court erred in denying relief due to lack of notice and procedural error.	Defendants said no basis for relief under Rule 60.	Reversed dismissal, so court did not need to address Rule 60 merits.
Did the court err by failing to rule on other pending motions?	Farrow complained the district court ignored several motions.	Defendants made no direct argument.	Court declined to review, left unresolved motions for district court on remand.

Koh v. Kumar, 207 P.3d 900 (Colo. App. 2009) (notice before dismissal for lack of prosecution is mandatory)
Streu v. City of Colorado Springs ex rel. Colo. Springs Utils., 239 P.3d 1264 (Colo. 2010) (court must consider cause for delay before dismissing for failure to prosecute)
Maxwell v. W.K.A. Inc., 728 P.2d 321 (Colo. App. 1986) (lack of notice warrants relief from dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Brody v. Bock, 897 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995) (final judgment required for appellate jurisdiction)