Cary v. Hickenlooper et al

Filing 102

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/30/15. # 95 Motion to Disqualify Attorney is DENIED. (lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02072-RM-KLM
ARNOLD A. CARY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY ACHEN, CTCF, Food Services Captain,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney
General [#95] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff seeks the “immediate disqualification of the Colorado
Attorney General and the office’s subordinate Deputy Attorney General from acting as
defense counsel” in this matter because “the Attorney General is part of the Executive
Branch” and “Plaintiff’s complaint clearly alleges a conspiracy up to and including the
Executive Branch.” As Defendant more fully explains in the Response, “[t]he Colorado
Attorney General has a statutory duty to defend employees of the State of Colorado when
they are sued for acts arising out of the performance of their official duties.” [#97] at 2
(citing Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-101(4)). “As an employee of a state agency, the Defendant
is entitled to representation in the defense of any action arising out of the performance of
his duties and within the scope of his employment, unless his conduct was willful and
wanton, provided that the employee cooperates in his defense.” Response [#97] at 2
(citing Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-10-110(1), 24-10-118(1)). Examining the remaining claim in
this action, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant was acting within his
scope as an employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and thus no basis exists
for the disqualification of the Colorado Attorney General. The Court also notes that all
claims based on an alleged conspiracy within the Executive Branch have been dismissed
from this lawsuit. See Order [#81]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#95] is DENIED.
Dated: July 30, 2015