United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER, OVERRULING
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER, AND DISMISSING
S. Krieger, Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Luke
Irvin Chrisco's Motion to Reconsider
(#53) and Objection (#62)
to the Magistrate Judge's July 20, 2017 Recommendation
(#48) that the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (#28) be granted. Also at issue is
Mr. Chrisco's Motion to Stay (#58).
Court offers a brief summary of the Complaint's
allegations here and elaborates as necessary in its analysis.
Chrisco, who appears pro se,  is currently
incarcerated at the Centennial Correctional Facility in
Cañon City, Colorado.
Complaint alleges that Mr. Chrisco was detained at the
Boulder County Jail after probation revocation proceedings
were initiated against him. He filed a motion to dismiss the
probation revocation proceedings, arguing that the State of
Colorado's Sex Offender Intensive Supervised Probation
program (“SOISP program”) was unconstitutional.
When he filed his reply brief (“Reply Brief”)
with the Boulder County District Court, he kept a personal
copy of the it with the intent of using it in order to pursue
an independent civil action against the State of Colorado to
prohibit imposition of the SOISP program against him.
Ultimately, Mr. Chrisco's probation was revoked.
before the sentencing hearing on the probation violation, Mr.
Chrisco was in the jail library, when Deputy
Hayes instructed him to leave. Deputy Hayes
prevented Mr. Chrisco from picking up his paperwork, which
included his Reply Brief. After Mr. Chrisco left, Deputy
Hayes placed a different inmate in the law library, and
purportedly destroyed the Reply Brief. When Mr. Chrisco
discovered that he did not have the Reply Brief, he returned
to the library to retrieve it, but it was no longer there. He
attempted to obtain an additional copy of it from Boulder
County District Court, but was unable to do so. He contends
that without the Reply Brief, he was unable to file a civil
action seeking to enjoin the SOISP program.
Chrisco filed his Complaint (#1), and upon
initial review, the Court dismissed) all
claims against Defendants other than Deputy Hayes
(#5). Two claims against Deputy Hayes
remain. One asserts that Deputy Hayes violated Mr.
Chrisco's rights under the Equal Protection Clause and
the other that Deputy Hayes violated his rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
that he is entitled qualified immunity, Deputy Hayes filed a
Motion to Dismiss (#28) Mr. Chrisco's
remaining claims. The Court referred the Motion to the
Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a
Recommendation (#48) that the motion be
granted. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that (1)
the Complaint did not state a traditional equal protection
claim because it failed to allege that Mr. Chrisco is a
member of a protected class or that similarly situated
individuals were treated more favorably; (2) the Complaint
also failed to state a “class-of-one” equal
protection claim because it did not identify other similarly
situated individuals who were treated more favorably than Mr.
Chrisco and its allegations were too conclusory to
demonstrate that Deputy Hayes' actions were irrational,
abusive, and wholly unrelated to any legitimate state
activity; and (3) the Complaint failed to state a due process
claim because Mr. Chrisco was not a pretrial detainee, Deputy
Hayes' conduct was not sufficiently egregious so as to
shock the conscience, and Mr. Chrisco had an alternate,
adequate remedy under Colorado law. Finally, the Magistrate
Judge sua sponte recommended that Mr. Chrisco not be
granted leave to amend the Complaint.
Chrisco filed a Motion to Reconsider (#53),
in which he asked the Court to reconsider the recommendation
that he not be granted leave to amend the Complaint. He then
filed his Objection (#62) to the
Recommendation. In the Objection, he does not challenge the
Magistrate Judge's finding that the Complaint does not
state a plausible, traditional equal protection claim or a
substantive due process claim. Instead, he argues that the
Complaint adequately pleads a class-of-one equal protection
claim and asks for leave to amend the Complaint to correct
the deficiencies in his due process claim.
Standard of Review
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviews
the objected-to portions ...