2017 COA 110
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert D. Gandy, a Canadian citizen serving a Colorado habitual‑criminal life sentence, repeatedly sought transfer to Canada under international treaty procedures; prior transfer requests were denied.
- On Sept. 3, 2015 Gandy submitted another transfer application; on Feb. 8, 2016 the DOC Director denied it, citing a 2012 Canadian denial and advising Gandy he could reapply in two years, but the Director did not forward the file to the Executive Director.
- Gandy sued in district court under C.R.C.P. 106 seeking mandamus to compel the DOC to process and submit his application to the U.S. Department of Justice and sought nominal punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations; the court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The DOC’s Admin. Reg. 550‑05 sets a multi‑step transfer application process culminating in a required final review and decision by the Executive Director or his designee.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and evaluated (1) whether the regulation conferred a clear right to have the Director forward the application to the Executive Director (mandamus duty), and (2) whether DOC correctly imposed a two‑year re‑application waiting period and whether constitutional claims were adequately pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Regulation gives applicant a right to have the Director forward the transfer application to the Executive Director for final review | Gandy: Regulation mandates final review by Executive Director or designee; Director had duty to forward the file | Defs: Director properly concluded application and need not forward; Director acted as designee | Held: Regulation requires the Director to forward applications to the Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee; dismissal of mandamus claim was erroneous and must be remedied by ordering the Director to forward the file |
| Whether the Executive Director’s final review may be delegated to the DOC Director | Gandy: Only the Executive Director may perform final review; delegation to Director would remove statutory function | Defs: Executive Director delegated authority to the Director (Director acted as designee) | Held: The Executive Director may delegate to a designee, but the record contains no evidence of a delegation to the Director; allowing the Director to act as both reviewer and final designee would render sequential steps meaningless, so the Director cannot be treated as the Executive Director’s designee absent evidence of delegation |
| Whether DOC may impose a two‑year waiting period to reapply after a DOC denial | Gandy: Regulation does not authorize a two‑year bar after DOC denial; two‑year rule applies only to DOJ denials | Defs: DOC can apply the same two‑year rule the DOJ uses | Held: Regulation does not require or authorize a two‑year waiting period after a DOC denial; DOC may promulgate such a rule but it did not here |
| Whether Gandy pleaded viable constitutional claims (Supremacy Clause and Equal Protection) | Gandy: Regulation conflicts with multilateral treaty and discriminates based on national origin | Defs: Regulation complies with applicable treaty; no pleaded facts of disparate treatment | Held: Court affirmed dismissal of constitutional claims — no preemption/conflict with the Treaty and insufficient factual allegations to state an equal protection claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Gandy v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 898 (Colo. App. 2012) (prior appellate treatment of Gandy’s transfer claims)
- Gramiger v. Crowley, 660 P.2d 1279 (Colo. 1983) (three‑part mandamus test)
- Phillips v. Exec. Dir., Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 251 P.3d 1176 (Colo. App. 2010) (rules for interpreting administrative regulations)
- Plains Metro. Dist. v. Ken‑Caryl Ranch Metro. Dist., 250 P.3d 697 (Colo. App. 2010) (construing mandatory language such as "will" or "shall")
- People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71 (Colo. 2006) (avoid rendering statutory/regulatory language superfluous)