L. R. Moore, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections; and Warden of Sterling Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
County District Court No. 17CV12 Honorable Kevin L. Hoyer,
Moore, Pro Se
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Kathryn A. Starnella,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
1 The primary issue raised in this appeal is whether C.R.C.P.
106.5 provides prison inmates with a means to obtain judicial
review of decisions by the Colorado State Board of Parole
(parole board). Plaintiff, L. R. Moore, an inmate in the
custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC),
appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his
action seeking C.R.C.P. 106.5 review of a parole board
decision deferring his parole.
2 We conclude that C.R.C.P. 106.5 is not a mechanism for
obtaining judicial review of parole board decisions. For that
reason and others, we affirm the judgment dismissing
3 Moore filed a "Rule 106.5 Petition" against
defendants, the DOC's executive director and the warden
of the prison facility where Moore is housed. In that
petition, and in a later-filed "complaint," Moore
said that he was challenging a March 2017 parole board
decision to defer his parole. He alleged that in making the
decision, the parole board abused its discretion in a number
4 Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that (1)
the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the parole
board's discretionary parole decision and (2) defendants
were not the proper parties to an action challenging the
5 In various responsive motions, Moore argued that he was
entitled to challenge the parole board's decision under
C.R.C.P. 106.5. He further argued that the case authority
defendants relied on in their motion to dismiss was
"irrelevant" because the cases were all decided
before the promulgation of C.R.C.P. 106.5.
6 The district court ultimately granted defendants'
motion and dismissed the case.
7 Moore contends that the district court erred in dismissing
the action. He continues to argue that he is entitled to
judicial review of the parole board's decision under
C.R.C.P. 106.5, and that the legal authority supporting
defendants' dismissal motion is no longer valid because
it predates the promulgation of ...