United States District Court, D. Colorado
The ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SCOTT DIXON, S.A.D., minor child, by and through his guardian and next friend Starla LeRoux, and CODY DIXON, Plaintiffs,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CROWLEY COUNTY, CROWLEY COUNTY COLORADO SHERIFFS OFFICE, MILES CLARK, in his individual capacity, MARK MORLOCK, in his individual capacity, JAMES BUTLER, in his individual capacity, and ALACIA JACOBS, in her individual capacity, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on several pending motions:
(1) Plaintiffs The Estate of Timothy Scott Dixon, S.A.D., a
minor child, and Cody N. Dixon's (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion for
Reconsideration of Order and Judgment of Dismissal [ECF #136
and ECF #137] (the “Motion to Reconsider”) [#138,
filed Apr. 28, 2017];
(2) Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to (Re)Open Case (the
“Motion to Reopen”) [#139, filed May 1, 2017];
(3) Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to F.R.CIV.P. 62(b)(3)
For Stay Pending Disposition of F.R.CIV.P.59(e) Motion [ECF
#138] (the “Motion to Stay”) [#140, filed May 1,
(4) Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Expedited Briefing
and Disposition of Motion for Stay (the “Motion to
Expedite Briefing”) [#141, filed May 1, 2017].
motions are before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the Order of Reference dated
March 11, 2016 [#62]. Local Rule 7.1(d) provides that a
judicial officer may rule on a motion at any time after it is
filed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). The court concludes that
further briefing and oral argument will not materially assist
in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, after
carefully considering the motions and associated briefing,
the entire case file, the applicable case law, the court
hereby DENIES the motions for the reasons stated herein.
court has discussed in detail this action's background in
previous rulings, see, e.g., [#107; #136], and
discusses it here only as it pertains to the pending motions.
On December 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their initial
Complaint in this matter. [#1]. Then, on March 11, 2016, the
court granted Plaintiffs' First Motion to Amend their
Complaint, see [#63], and Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) became the operative
complaint in this matter. See [#67].
April 5, 2016, Defendants Butler, Jacobs, and Clark each
filed their own Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of all
claims against them for failure to state a claim or on
qualified immunity grounds. See [#72; #73; #75].
Then, on April 25, 2016, the County Defendants filed a
Partial Motion to Dismiss Claim I (Unlawful Arrest and
Seizure) for failure to state a claim and because Defendant
Morlock was entitled to qualified immunity. [#84]. On
November 15, 2016, the court issued an order dismissing
without prejudice Claim I (Unlawful Arrest and Seizure),
Claim II (Failure to Provide Medical Care) as to Defendant
Jacobs only, Claim V (Supervisory Liability - Failure to
Train) as to Defendant Clark only, and Claim VI (Wrongful
Death by Negligent Supervision) as to Defendant Clark only.
January 19, 2017, the County Defendants and Individual
Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) filed
their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. See
[#114; #116]. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on
the FAC's remaining claims: Claim II (Failure to Provide
Medical Care) against Defendants Morlock, Clark, and Butler;
Claim III (Monell liability - Failure to Provide
Medical Care); Claim IV (Monell liability - Failure
to Train/Supervise); Claim V (Supervisory Liability - Failure
to Train) against Defendant Morlock; Claim VI (Wrongful Death
- Negligent Supervision) against the County Defendants and
Defendants Butler and Jacobs; and Claim VII (Wrongful Death -
Negligence). Plaintiffs filed a joint response [#123], and
Defendants each filed a reply [#131; #132].
April 18, 2017, the court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order (“Order) granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. [#136]. The
court held that Defendants Clark, Butler, and Morlock were
entitled to qualified immunity on Claim II, because
Plaintiffs failed to argue the clearly established prong of
the qualified immunity analysis-a formidable burden on
summary judgment that is distinct from the court's
analysis at the motion to dismiss phase. [Id. at
20-21]. In addition, the court held that Plaintiffs failed to
create a triable issue of fact as to Claims III, IV, and V,
and entered summary judgment in favor of the County
Defendants. [Id. at 22-28]. Lastly, the court
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' state-law claims, Claims VI and VII, given
its dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal law claims.
[Id. at 28]. On April 19, 2017, the Clerk of the
Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the County
Defendants on Claims II, III, IV, and V, and in favor of the
Individual Defendants on Claim II, pursuant to the
court's Order. See [#137].
April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to
Reconsider, requesting that the court reconsider and vacate
its Order and vacate the Final Judgment, while also denying
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. [#138].
Plaintiffs argue that the court already decided the clearly
established issue in its November 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion
and Order on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and that
Plaintiffs nonetheless argued the clearly established prong
in their Response to the Motions for Summary Judgment.
[Id.]. Then, on May 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed ...