Farrow v. CDOC
23CA1072
| Colo. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2024Background
- Michael Farrow, an inmate, sought judicial review of a July 2018 prison disciplinary action (for failure to work) via a C.R.C.P. 106.5 complaint.
- This was Farrow's third appeal after almost six years of litigation; prior proceedings saw district court dismissals reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals twice before.
- After Farrow’s earlier filings, the court set a briefing schedule, requiring him to submit an opening brief by September 5, 2022.
- Farrow did not submit a brief by the deadline, asserting instead that he submitted motions for extension and supplementation of the record (not found in the court record).
- The trial court entered a minute order dismissing for failure to prosecute without giving required written notice or opportunity to show cause, and later denied Farrow’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
- Farrow appealed, challenging both the procedural handling and substance of the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without notice was error | Dismissal violated required notice rules | Dismissal was proper for failure to prosecute | Dismissal was reversible error; notice required |
| Timeliness of appeal from unsigned order | Appeal timely filed after signed order | Appeal time ran from minute order | Notice of appeal was timely; unsigned order not final |
| Failure to rule on outstanding motions | Court erred by not addressing motions | Court did not directly address | No review; district court to address on remand |
| Adequacy of record for appellate review | Record incomplete due to missing filings | No record supporting extension | Court only considers record before it |
Key Cases Cited
- Brody v. Bock, 897 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995) (clarifying that a final, written, signed judgment is a prerequisite for appeal)
- Streu v. City of Colorado Springs ex rel. Colo. Springs Utils., 239 P.3d 1264 (Colo. 2010) (court must provide proper notice before dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Koh v. Kumar, 207 P.3d 900 (Colo. App. 2009) (compliance with notice requirements for dismissal under C.R.C.P. 121 is mandatory)
- Kidwell v. K-Mart Corp., 942 P.2d 1280 (Colo. App. 1996) (unsigned minute orders are not final, appealable judgments)
- Maxwell v. W.K.A. Inc., 728 P.2d 321 (Colo. App. 1986) (failure to provide required notice before dismissal warrants relief under Rule 60(b))