Maynard et al v. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, The et al

Filing 261

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 242 , is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an Order of the Court. This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, by Judge John L. Kane on 7/25/12.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Case No. 09-cv-2052-JLK-MEH (consolidated with 10-cv-1850)
In re Alison Maynard and Gerald Lewis civil rights litigation.
__________________________________
ALISON MAYNARD, and
GERALD LEWIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLORADO SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION, et al.
Defendants.
[DOCUMENT APPLIES TO BOTH 09-cv-2052 and 10-cv-1850]
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 242)
________________________________________________________________________
KANE, J.
These consolidated cases are before me on the Objection of pro se Plaintiffs
Alison Maynard and Gerald Lewis to Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s July 18, 2011 Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 242). I referred the cases to Magistrate Judge Hegarty after
striking Plaintiffs’ original Complaints based on the ad hominem tenor of their allegations
and finding Plaintiffs’ actual claims for relief “difficult to discern.” See Order (Doc.
202). In my Order, I consolidated the cases and ordered the parties to participate
“meaningfully” in a status conference with the Magistrate Judge Hegarty aimed at
determining what Plaintiffs’ actual complaints were and whether those complaints could

be tailored to one or more cognizable claims for relief. I denied all currently pending
motions and ordered Plaintiffs to review a series of authoritative cases before any
amendment of pleadings would be considered. Finally, I ordered Plaintiffs to prepare a
Status Report identifying all other legal actions they have filed and maintained in this or
any other court arising out of Ms. Maynard’s representation of Mr. Lewis in the ill-fated
real property litigation and fully disclosing the procedural history of each. After the
status conference, Magistrate Judge Hegarty was to issue a recommendation as to whether
leave to file an amended consolidated Complaint should be granted, or whether doing so
would simply be futile.
Magistrate Judge Hegarty did as requested, ultimately issuing a 54-page Report
culminating with the recommendation that leave to file an Amended Consolidated
Complaint should be denied as futile. In a thorough and detailed analysis, giving
Plaintiffs every benefit of the doubt under applicable Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 standards,
Magistrate Judge Hegarty concluded Plaintiffs’ allegations – those made previously and
portended – failed to state a single viable claim for relief against any of the state court
judges, attorneys, individuals, or disciplinary entities Plaintiffs intended to name as
Defendants.
Foreseeably, Plaintiffs objected to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 251).
They did so under protest given that they had previously filed a Notice of Appeal and a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which they argued
deprived this Court, and the Magistrate Judge, of jurisdiction over the consolidated cases
2

generally.1 At some point during this period, Ms. Maynard moved out of state and the
Court of Appeals actions were dismissed for failure to prosecute. While I had reviewed
the Recommendation and each of the related filings at the time they were made, the
matter fell into a sort of limbo and no final disposition on Plaintiffs’ Objection was ever
made. There has been no action and no filings in these cases since September 2011.
Having now re-reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 242), Plaintiffs’
Objections (Doc.251), and related briefing, IT IS ORDERED THAT
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 242), is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED as an Order of the Court. While my review under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 72
is de novo, I agree with the Magistrate Judge’s exceedingly fair and thoughtful analysis
on all counts, and conclude no purpose would be served by allowing Plaintiffs to file what
would be an ineffective Consolidated Amended Complaint that failed to state any viable,
actionable claims against the Defendants. This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, with
the parties to bear their own fees and costs.
Dated July 25, 2012.
s/John L. Kane
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1

I note that at various stages of this litigation, Plaintiffs have argued that all of the
judges in this district, save Judge Martinez, lacked jurisdiction over their cases for reasons
ranging from personal bias to outright corruption.
3