Cisneros v. Elder

506 P.3d 828

Saul CISNEROS, Petitioner,

v.Bill ELDER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado, Respondent.

Supreme Court Case No. 21SC6

Supreme Court of Colorado.

March 21, 2022

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing April 11, 2022

Attorneys for Petitioner: Holland & Hart LLP, Stephen G. Masciocchi, Denver, Colorado

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Mark Silverstein, Arielle Herzberg, Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent: Office of the County Attorney of El Paso County, Colorado, Mary Margaret Ritchie, Assistant County Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE HART, JUSTICE SAMOUR, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined.

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 We granted certiorari to consider whether the division below erred in concluding that section 24-10-106(1.5)(b), C.R.S. (2021), of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA") does not waive sovereign immunity for intentional torts that result from the operation of a jail for claimants who are incarcerated but not convicted.

¶2 We now conclude that section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) waives immunity for such intentional torts. In reaching this determination, we conclude that the statutory language waiving immunity for "claimants who are incarcerated but not yet convicted" and who "can show injury due to negligence" sets a floor, not a ceiling. To hold otherwise would mean that a pre-conviction claimant could recover for injuries resulting from the negligent operation of a jail but not for injuries resulting from the intentionally tortious operation of the same jail, an absurd result that we cannot countenance.

¶3 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the division below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶4 In November 2017, Saul Cisneros was charged with two misdemeanor offenses and jailed in the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center (the "jail"). The court set Cisneros's bond at $2,000, and Cisneros's daughter posted that bond four days later, but the El Paso County Sheriff's Office did not release Cisneros. Instead, pursuant to Sheriff Bill Elder's policies and practices, the Sheriff's Office notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") that the jail had been asked to release Cisneros on bond. ICE then sent the jail a detainer and administrative warrant, requesting that the jail continue to detain Cisneros because ICE suspected that he was removable from the United States.

¶5 Pursuant to Sheriff Elder's policies and practices, the Sheriff's Office complied with ICE's request, placed Cisneros on an indefinite "ICE hold," and continued to detain him. The jail subsequently advised Cisneros's daughter that the Sheriff's Office would not release her father due to the ICE hold, and she ultimately recovered the bond money that she had posted.

¶6 During his detention, Cisneros, along with another pretrial detainee, initiated a class action in state court against Sheriff Elder, in his official capacity, for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. Their complaint alleged that Sheriff Elder did not have the authority under state law to continue to hold pretrial detainees in custody when Colorado law required their release, nor did he have the authority to deprive persons of their liberty based on suspicion of civil violations of federal immigration law. Cisneros also asserted a tort claim against Sheriff Elder, seeking damages for false imprisonment, but he subsequently filed an amended complaint in which he did not reassert that claim, stating that he intended to file the requisite notice of such a claim under the CGIA and to reassert that claim at the proper time. Cisneros and Sheriff Elder later agreed, however, that, in order to allow the class action lawsuit to proceed without undue delay, Cisneros would not reassert his tort claim in the class action lawsuit and Sheriff Elder would not assert claim or issue preclusion as a defense in any future lawsuit brought by Cisneros asserting that claim.

¶7 In March 2018, the El Paso County District Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Sheriff Elder from relying on ICE immigration detainers or administrative warrants as grounds for refusing to release pretrial detainees from custody when they post bond, complete their sentences, or otherwise resolve their criminal cases. The court thus ordered Sheriff Elder to release Cisneros and his co-plaintiff, pending resolution of their criminal cases, if they posted bond. Cisneros's daughter did so again for her father, and Cisneros was released from custody, nearly four months after his initial detention.

¶8 Thereafter, Cisneros and his co-plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asking the district court to grant mandamus relief, declare that Sheriff Elder's challenged policies violate the Colorado Constitution, and enter a permanent injunction prohibiting those practices. The court granted this motion and entered a judgment declaring that Sheriff Elder had exceeded his authority under Colorado law and violated the Colorado Constitution by relying on ICE detainers or administrative warrants as grounds for refusing to release prisoners who post bond, complete their sentences, or otherwise resolve their criminal cases.

¶9 Sheriff Elder then appealed. While his appeal was pending, however, the legislature enacted and Governor Polis signed into law House Bill 19-1124, now codified at sections 24-76.6-101 to - 103, C.R.S. (2021). This law expressly prohibits state law enforcement officers from detaining inmates based on civil immigration detainer requests. See § 24-76.6-102(2), C.R.S. (2021). The court of appeals division considering Sheriff Elder's appeal then concluded that this intervening legislation mooted the appeal, and the division therefore dismissed it. Cisneros v. Elder , No. 19CA0136, ¶ 3, 2020 WL 5352093 (Sept. 3, 2020).

¶10 In the interim, in November 2018, Cisneros filed the instant action against Sheriff Elder, in his official capacity, alleging that Cisneros's pretrial detainment constituted false imprisonment and seeking damages. Sheriff Elder responded by moving to dismiss the complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), asserting that the CGIA immunized him from liability.

¶11 The district court ultimately denied Sheriff Elder's motion, concluding that Cisneros's claim of false imprisonment falls within the CGIA's waiver of immunity for injuries resulting from the operation of a jail under section 24-10-106(1.5)(b), which allows claims asserted by claimants who are "incarcerated but not yet convicted" if such claimants "can show injury due to negligence." In so concluding, the district court rejected Sheriff Elder's contentions that Cisneros's alleged injuries did not result from the operation of a jail because, in the court's view, "the Sheriff's determination of whether or not to release an inmate lies at the very heart of the Sheriff's duties and is intimately related to the purpose and operation of the Jail." In addition, construing the waiver of immunity broadly and seeking to avoid an absurd result, the court determined that the statutory requirement that a pre-conviction claimant show "injury due to negligence" is satisfied not only if the claimant suffers an injury due to negligence, but also "for injuries due to anything greater than negligence, including both gross negligence and intentional actions." To find otherwise, the court opined, "would be to apply a narrow, rather than a broad, construction of this ambiguous waiver provision, and it would lead to the absurd result that a detainee could sue for negligent actions committed in a jail but not for intentional torts." The court concluded, "Such a result would not be just and reasonable, nor would it effect the purposes of the CGIA."

¶12 Pursuant to section 24-10-108, C.R.S. (2021), Sheriff Elder then filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing, among other things, that the district court had erred in ruling that the CGIA's waiver of governmental immunity under section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) extends to injuries caused by intentional torts.

¶13 In a split, published decision, another division of the court of appeals reversed the district court's order, agreeing with Sheriff Elder that the waiver of governmental immunity in section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) applies only to negligent conduct that results in injury and does not provide a remedy for intentional misconduct. Cisneros v. Elder , 2020 COA 163M, ¶¶ 4, 39–40, 490 P.3d 985, 986, 990. In the majority's view, " ‘[N]egligence’ means negligence; it does not mean intentional conduct." Id. at ¶ 4, 490 P.3d at 986. Thus, the waiver of sovereign immunity under section 24-10-106(1.5)(b), which references only "injury due to negligence," must be read as applying only to injuries caused by negligence, and not to those caused by intentional torts. Id. at ¶¶ 19–20, 490 P.3d at 988. The majority was not persuaded otherwise by Cisneros's argument that because intentional acts subsume negligent ones, the waiver provision must extend to intentional torts. Id. at ¶¶ 24–26, 490 P.3d at 988–89. According to the majority, under settled Colorado law, negligence and intentional torts are distinct, and, by definition, negligence does not include intentional acts. Id. at ¶¶ 25–26, 490 P.3d at 988–89.

¶14 Writing only for herself, Judge Terry, who authored the majority opinion, went on to review, "for the sake of completeness," the legislative history, which she concluded reinforced the majority's reading of section 24-10-106(1.5)(b). Id. at ¶¶ 28, 37, 490 P.3d at 989–90. In Judge Terry's view, the legislative hearings on section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) demonstrated that the legislature had introduced this provision in response to concerns about inmates bringing frivolous negligence claims against jails and correctional facilities, and intentional torts...