In re Raven v. Polis, 2021 CO 8

Seven transgender women in Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) custody brought a class action alleging CDOC policies and practices discriminate, expose them to violence, deny accommodations, and provide inadequate medical/mental health care in violation of CADA and the Colorado Constitution.
Plaintiffs named the Governor (official capacity), CDOC, the CDOC Executive Director, and current/former CDOC employees; many allegations targeted specific actions by CDOC officials.
Governor Polis moved to dismiss, arguing he was an improper defendant because Developmental Pathways v. Ritter limits naming the Governor when a responsible agency or official exists.
The district court denied dismissal, reasoning the Governor remains an appropriate defendant for suits challenging enforcement or implementation of state law by executive agencies; Governor sought relief via C.A.R. 21.
The Colorado Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction and discharged the rule, holding the Governor may be named in his official capacity where the challenged actions derive from an executive agency under his control.
The court distinguished Developmental Pathways (which involved a statutorily created independent ethics commission not under gubernatorial control) and reaffirmed precedent permitting naming the Governor when plaintiffs seek to enjoin or mandate enforcement by executive agencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 was appropriate for Governor’s petition	Plaintiffs implicitly opposed shortening proceedings; main point is that appellate review would follow trial	Governor: original relief needed to avoid burdens of discovery/trial and mootness on appeal	Court: Original jurisdiction appropriate because appellate review would be inadequate after trial
Whether the Governor is a proper defendant in a suit challenging CDOC’s implementation of law	Plaintiffs: Governor may be named in his official capacity because CDOC is an executive agency under his control	Governor: After Developmental Pathways, Governor is improper if an identifiable agency/official administers the challenged law	Court: Governor is a proper defendant; longstanding precedent allows naming Governor when suit seeks to enjoin or mandate enforcement by executive agencies
Whether Developmental Pathways eliminated the practice of naming the Governor when an agency exists	Plaintiffs: Developmental Pathways is distinguishable and did not overrule prior practice	Governor: Developmental Pathways requires assessing parties by facts; if an agency administers law, Governor shouldn’t be sued	Court: Developmental Pathways limited to its facts (an independent commission); it did not alter the rule permitting suits naming the Governor when agency is under gubernatorial control

Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524 (Colo. 2008) (considered proper defendant where an independent enforcement commission did not yet exist)
Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851 (Colo. 2004) (Governor is proper defendant when suing to enjoin or mandate enforcement by the executive)
Fognani v. Young, 115 P.3d 1268 (Colo. 2005) (discusses Colorado Supreme Court’s discretionary Rule 21 jurisdiction)
Romer v. Board of County Commissioners, 897 P.2d 779 (Colo. 1995) (Governor named in suit challenging an agency’s statutory interpretation)
Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980) (Governor named in suit challenging prison conditions)