Schupper v. Cafasso et al

Filing 187

ORDER Granting 183 Motion to Reopen Case. The Clerk of Court shall reopen this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that since this case was previously drawn to Magistrate Judge Boland who is no longer with the Court, the Clerk of Court shall assign a new magistrate judge, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/30/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01853-WYD-BNB
SANFORD B. SCHUPPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBYN CAFASSO, in his individual and official capacity,
WILLIAM EDIE, in his individual and official capacity,
JEANIE SMITH, in her individual and official capacity,
DAVID ZOOK, in his individual and official capacity,
JOHN NEWSOME, in his individual and official capacity,
DAN MAY, in his individual and official capacity,
LINDA DIX, in her individual and official capacity,
RAYMOND SANTISTEVAN, in his individual and official capacity,
RONALD WILKINS, in his individual and official capacity,
ANDREA WALTON, in her individual and official capacity,
DEBBI PARR, in her individual and official capacity,
JOHN RUSZCZYK, in his individual and official capacity, and
JOHN DOE, JANE DOES, DOES 1 - X,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case filed
on August 15, 2015. A Joint Response opposing the motion was filed on August 25,
2015, and a reply was filed by Plaintiff on September 8, 2015.
By way of background, I note that a Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge was issued in February 2011 which recommended dismissal of
certain claims, that Plaintiff’s federal claims for monetary damages be stayed pursuant
to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) until the state proceedings were final, and that

the case be administratively closed pending the finality of the state court proceedings.
No objections were filed, and I issued an Order on March 2, 2011, affirming the
recommendation and administratively closing the case.
Thereafter, Plaintiff complained that he had not received the Recommendation
and filed an appeal of my March 2, 2011 Order. After the appeal was dismissed, I
reopened the case by Order of February 14, 2012, and permitted Plaintiff to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 2, 2011 Order. Despite seeking and
receiving numerous extensions of time to file a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff did
not timely file such a motion as stated in my Order of March 11, 2013. That Order also
stated that even if I were to consider a motion to reconsider that was filed untimely by
Plaintiff, it provided no basis to reconsider my March 2, 2011 Order administratively
closing the case. Accordingly, per my Order of March 11, 2013, the case was again
administratively closed in accordance with the initial order of administrative closure of
March 2, 2011.
Plaintiff now seeks to reopen the case, asserting that he has established good
cause for the reopening because the state proceedings are concluded. Defendants
acknowledge in their response that the state proceedings are final, but object to the
reopening on the basis that Plaintiff did not establish good cause for reopening the
case. They assert that Plaintiff’s motion is appropriately viewed as a motion to
reconsider, and that Plaintiff did not establish good cause under that standard for
reopening the case. I disagree.

-2-

My March 2, 2011 Order affirmed and adopted the Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge of February 7, 2011. Magistrate Judge Boland noted therein
that where a plaintiff asserts equitable claims and damage claims which are barred by
the Younger abstention doctrine, as in this case, the district court should dismiss the
equitable claims but not dismiss the action altogether. (Recommendation at 15.) He
stated that “[a] finding in this case that the defendants violated the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights would have a preclusive effect in the state court proceedings”;
“[t]herefore, the damage claims must be stayed pending finality of the state proceeding.”
(Id.) He then noted that “[t]he case may beneficially be administratively closed pending
a showing of good cause to reopen by the plaintiff after the state proceedings are final.”
(Id.)
In affirming the Recommendation, I agreed with Magistrate Judge Boland’s
suggestion to administratively close the case in lieu of a stay, stating that the Tenth
Circuit has construed administrative closure as the practical equivalent of a stay. (ECF
No. 71, at 3.) Accordingly, I ordered that “in lieu of a stay of the remaining claims by
Plaintiff (the federal claims for monetary damages), the case is ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, pending a showing of good cause to
reopen by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 4.) (emphasis in original.)
Thus, the case was effectively stayed via administrative closure, and the only
requirement for reopening the case as to the federal claims for monetary damages was
that the state court proceedings be final. Since Plaintiff has shown that this requirement
is met, he has established good cause for reopening the case and I find that Plaintiff’s

-3-

motion to reopen should be granted. Plaintiff was not required to file a motion for
reconsideration, or to meet the standards of such a motion in connection with his motion
to reopen.
Defendants also assert, however, that if the case is reopened they should be
allowed to move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). They
contend in that regard that the State Court litigation has been completed and all issues
relevant to potential claims have been litigated in the State Court system. Defendants’
request is appropriate. Once the case is reopened, Defendants may file a motion to
dismiss which will be decided on the merits after briefing by all parties.
In conclusion, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case (ECF No. )is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall reopen this case. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that since this case was previously drawn to Magistrate
Judge Boland who is no longer with the Court, the Clerk of Court shall assign a new
magistrate judge.
Dated: September 30, 2015
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-4-