Pina-Belmarez v. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, The et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/9/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-03179-REB-MJW
CORINNA PINA-BELMAREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY COLORADO,
THE OFFICE OF THE WELD COUNTY CORNER/MEDICAL EXAMINER,
PATRICK C. ALLEN, M.D., in his individual capacity,
MARK WARD, in his individual capacity, and
JAMES A. WILKERSON IV, M.D., in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Blackburn, J.
The matter before is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#50],1 filed
November 30, 2012. I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
(federal question) and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Having reviewed the motion
and response and the apposite arguments, authorities, and evidence presented by the
parties, it is apparent that there exist genuine issues of material fact that are not
appropriate for summary resolution.2
1

“[#50]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

The sole legal issue presented by the motion – whether the Office of the Weld County
Coroner/Medical Examiner and the individual defendants are entities capable of being sued – has no more
probative force now than when it was presented in defendants’ motion to dismiss. As I said in rejecting
that argument previously, defendants’ arguments are premised on concepts which assist in determining
whether parties are “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, principles which have no obvious
application in the context of the claims brought here. (See Order Re: Motion for Partial Dismissal of

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [#50], filed November 30, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated January 9, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

Claims at 13-14 [#39], filed July 19, 2012.) Defendants’ citations to portions of the Weld County Home
Rule Charter outlining the authority of the Board of County Commissioners to sue and be sued – but
inexplicably excluding those portions that detail the authority and responsibilities of the Country Coroner –
add no further force to their arguments.
Instead, it strikes this court that a more salient inquiry in this case would focus on who qualifies as
plaintiff’s employer for purposes of her employment law claims, but because the motion does not raise that
issue, I decline to address it further.

2