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 Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on three pending motions:
(1) Plaintiffs The Estate of Timothy Scott Dixon, S.A.D., a
minor child, and Cody N. Dixon's (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Reopen Case [#144, filed
May 8, 2017];
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion For Stay Pending Appeal [#145,
filed May 8, 2017]; and
(3) Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion For Stay Pending Appeal
(the “Corrected Motion to Stay”) [#147, filed May
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]. This court originally ordered
Defendants to respond to the Motion For Stay Pending Appeal
[#145] and Corrected Motion to Stay [#147] no later than the
close of business on May 10, 2017, but having reviewed the
Corrected Motion to Stay, the court has concluded that
further briefing and oral argument would not materially
assist in the disposition of the matter and it is in the
interests of justice to expedite its ruling. 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).
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 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-Plaintiffs' burden on
summary judgment, and that the court's ruling on the
motion to dismiss did not excuse Plaintiffs from addressing
that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. [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]. The entry of Final
Judgment closed this case.
April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the a 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]. Then, on May 1, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Reopen, Motion to Stay, and
Motion to Expedite Briefing. See [#139; #140; #141].
Plaintiffs sought to reopen the case, presumably because the
docket now reflects it is “terminated” so that
this court would reconsider its ruling on summary judgment;
to stay the execution of the judgment pending their Motion to
Reconsider; and to expedite briefing related to the Motion to
Reconsider. By its Order dated May 3, 2017, the court denied
Plaintiffs' motions. See [#142].
the court's denial of Plaintiffs' motions, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal on May 8, 2017. [#143]. On the same
day, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Reopen and Motion For
Stay Pending Appeal. [#144; #145]. On May 9, 2017, Plaintiffs
filed their Corrected Motion to Stay, requesting that the
court stay its execution of the Final Judgment pending
Plaintiffs' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit (“Tenth Circuit”). [#147].
Plaintiffs request a stay to avoid filing their pendent
state-law claims in state court while their appeal is pending
before the Tenth Circuit. [Id. at 4-5].
Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that a stay of this
court's Final Judgment will insulate their state-law
claims from the applicable state statutes of limitation.
[Id. at 4]. The court considers the motions below.
Motion to Reopen
Plaintiffs request that the court reopen their case for good
cause shown. [#144]. Plaintiffs appear to take issue with the
closing of their case pursuant to the entry of Final
Judgment, arguing that there is no order on the docket
closing the case, nor did Plaintiffs receive any such order.
[Id. at 2]. Plaintiffs argue that the court should
reopen this case in order to rule on their Motion to Stay.
[Id.]. Because Plaintiffs misapprehend the
“termination” of the case, the Motion to Reopen
support of their argument to reopen this case for good cause
shown, Plaintiffs cite Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters
Insurance Company for the proposition that good cause
exists to reopen a case where a party seeks a determination
of their rights and claims. No. 11-CV-02306-RM-KLM, 2015 WL
1499662, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015). However,
Frederick is inapposite. The parties in
Frederick moved to administratively close
the matter pursuant to Rule 41.2 of the Local Rules of Civil
Practice, which is subject to reopening for good cause.
Id. (quoting D.C.COLO.LCivR. 41.2). Here, neither
the Parties, nor the court ordered this matter
administratively closed; rather, the case terminated upon the
Clerk's entry of Final Judgment, see Utah v.
Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (“A
final judgment is one that terminates all matters as to all
parties and causes of ...