Jones v. Reis

JIMMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN REIS, individually and in his official capacity as Sergeant Deputy for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office, CHRIS VAN WAGENEN, individually and in his official capacity as Patrol Deputy for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office, MARSHALL CURRIER, individually and in his official capacity as tow truck operator for J.R. Towing, UNKNOWN DOES 1-6, individually and in their official capacities as employees for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office/Detention Facility, RICHARD VALDEZ, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Archuleta County, Colorado, EDWARD WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as Commander of Archuleta County Detention Facility, UNKNOWN DOE 7, individually and in his/her official capacity as Evidence Technician for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office, TRACEY WOODROW, individually and in her official capacity as Evidence Technician for Archuleta County Sheriff's Office; J.R. TOWING, INC., and COUNTY OF ARCHULETA, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-cv-00545-CMA-KLM

United States District Court, D. Colorado

January 9, 2022

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

KRISTEN L. MIX, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss [#5]^[1] filed by Defendant Brian Reis (“Reis”) (the “Reis Motion”) and the Motion to Dismiss [#6] filed by Defendants Chris Van Wagenen (“Van Wagenen”) Unknown Does 1-6, Richard Valdez (“Valdez”) Edward Williams (“Williams”), Unknown Doe 7, and Tracey Woodrow (“Woodrow”) (collectively, the “Sheriff Defendants”), and County of Archuleta (“County”) (collectively “the Archuleta County Defendants') (the “Archuleta County Defendants' Motion”).^[2] Plaintiff filed Responses [#8, #9] in opposition to the Motions [#5, #6] and Defendants filed Replies [#15, 16]. The Motions [#5, #6] have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1. See [#13, #14]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, the Responses, the Replies, the entire case file, and the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully recommends that the Reis Motion [#5] be granted and that the Archuleta County Defendants' Motion be denied as to the due process claim asserted against Defendants Woodrow and Unknown Doe 7 but otherwise granted.

I. Background^[3]

Jimmy Jones (“Plaintiff”) was driving in his “private vehicle” through Pagosa Springs on March 7, 2021, at approximately 3:00 p.m. Compl. [#1] ¶ 16. Plaintiff was pulled over by Defendants Van Wagenen and Reis who were in an Archuleta County Sheriff's Office vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. When Plaintiff asked what crime he committed, Van Wagenen informed Plaintiff that he was not displaying proper registration on his vehicle. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff replied that this was not a crime and requested to continue traveling. Id. ¶ 22. Van Wagenen and Reis did not allow Plaintiff to continue but requested that he provide them with “papers.” Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff declined to hand over his papers (which the Court infers to be his identifying papers, including his driver's license), instead simply stating his name. Id. ¶¶ 24-26. In fact, Plaintiff admits that he was driving without his driver's license or any other identifying information. See id., ¶ 26. Reis demanded Plaintiff exit the vehicle so he could place him under arrest for “failure to identify.” Id. ¶ 25. Reis then “forced Plaintiff out of Plaintiff's vehicle and placed Plaintiff under arrest, handcuffing Plaintiff's wrists behind his back. Id.

Reis again requested Plaintiff's driver's license. Plaintiff responded that his license was probably in his wallet but that Reis did not have a warrant. Compl. [#1] ¶ 30. Reis replied that he did not need a warrant, and proceeded to search Plaintiff's person. Reis found Plaintiff's wallet in one of Plaintiff's pockets and seized the wallet without Plaintiff's permission. Plaintiff was then forced to sit on the sidewalk in full view of the people driving and walking by. Id. ¶¶ 30-32.

Reis and Van Wagenen began to examine the car and could not read the VIN because there was dust covering the plate. Compl. [#1] ¶¶ 33-34. Plaintiff told Reis and Van Wagenen that he had a bill of sale signed by the previous owner, as well as a copy of the title signed over to Plaintiff, which he referred to as “Proof of Rightful Ownership.” Id. ¶ 35. Reis and Van Wagenen refused to allow Plaintiff to retrieve these documents, but pulled the documents from the car at Plaintiff's direction along with what appeared to be Plaintiff's proof of insurance. Id. ¶¶ 36-37. Several minutes later a tow truck arrived, and when Plaintiff inquired about this, he was told that his insurance had expired. Plaintiff disputes this fact, as he was positive that his insurance was current, causing Plaintiff “to be at a loss for words as to why the claim of lapsed insurance was being made.” Id. ¶¶ 38-39. Plaintiff's handcuffs were then removed, and he was allowed to retrieve items from the car before it was “seized and impounded.” Id. ¶¶ 40-42.

Van Wagenen and Reis informed Plaintiff that by failing to display proper registration and by operating a motor vehicle with expired insurance, he had broken Colorado law. Compl. [#1] ¶ 44. They presented Plaintiff with a document delineating these citations and asked him to sign, informing him that the refusal to sign would result in imprisonment. Id. ¶¶ 45-46. Reis and Van Wagenen refused Plaintiff's request to verify that he had valid insurance. Accordingly, Plaintiff refused to sign the “fraudulent document” falsely claiming that Plaintiff did not have insurance. Id. ¶ 45. Van Wagenen, “visibly agitated from what Plaintiff believes was Plaintiff's refusal to sign a fraudulent document,” began placing Plaintiff under arrest. Id. Plaintiff was arrested, handcuffed, and transported to the jail (which Plaintiff identifies simply as “another location”). Id. ¶¶ 46-48.

Plaintiff arrived at the jail on March 7, 2021 at approximately 3:30 pm. See Compl. [#1] ¶ 49. He was held there until March 9, 2021 at approximately 3:30 pm. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Van Wagenen, Reis, Valdez, Williams, and Unknown Does 1-6 held him against his will. Id.

In the early morning of March 8, 2021, Plaintiff demanded to go before a judge and was told by an Unknown Doe that he would be able to do so that day. Compl. [#1] ¶ 50. However, before he was brought to a judge, Defendants Valdez and Williams arrived at Plaintiff's cell and requested that he sign “paperwork.” Id. ¶ 51. Plaintiff refused to do so, claiming that his rights had been violated and a false claim was made in the paperwork.

Williams then told Plaintiff that he was “going to be here for a while.” Id. ¶ 52. Over the next day and a half, various Unknown Does came to Plaintiff's cell to photograph Plaintiff, record Plaintiff's fingerprints, and request that he sign “papers,” but he “declined to selfincriminate.” Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiff contends that the Unknown Does who approached him each informed him that unless he complied with their requests, he would be denied access to a judge and held indefinitely. Id. Plaintiff was denied access to a judge on March 8, 2021 and in the morning of March 9, which Plaintiff believes was due to his exercise of his right not to self-incriminate. Plaintiff was ultimately brought before a judge at 3:00 pm on March 9th, 2021 and released shortly thereafter at around 3:30 p.m. Id. 54-56.

On March 7, 2021, Defendants Van Wagenen and Reis signed a Vehicle Impoundment Record which stated that Plaintiff's vehicle was impounded for “No Registration (expired)” and “No Insurance.” Compl. [#1] ¶ 57. On March 8, 2021, a Towed Vehicle Summary was entered in the Archuleta County Sheriff's Office by Unknown Doe 7, stating that Plaintiff's vehicle was “ABANDONED.” Id. ¶ 59. On or about March 21, 2021, Defendant Woodrow falsified and executed a Motor Vehicle Bill of Sale, selling Plaintiff's vehicle. In that document, Woodrow claimed the sale was of an “abandoned vehicle.” Id. ¶ 59.

After Plaintiff was released, he established contact with the towing company, the previous owner of his vehicle, and the new owner who had bought the vehicle in connection with the Motor Vehicle Bill of Sale. Compl. [#1] ¶¶ 60-62. The towing company claimed to Plaintiff that it could not establish contact with the previous owner, i.e., the person who had sold the car to Plaintiff. The previous owner claims, on the other hand, that after it received a letter from the Sheriff's Office about the car, the owner contacted the towing company and the Archuleta County Sheriff's Office to confirm that the owner sold the vehicle to Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. Plaintiff then located the new owner of the vehicle, and claims he retrieved his bill of sale for the car and proof of current insurance in the car's center console. Id. ¶¶ 62-63.

As a result of these events, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this matter,^[4]asserts four claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. Thus., Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourth Amendment in connection with the stop, search of his person, and seizure and impoundment of his vehicle without a warrant on March 7, 2021 by Reis and Van Wagenen. See Compl. [#1] at ¶¶ 70-73. Second, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause by being taken into custody and held without his will, not being immediately taken before a judge, and by the sale of his vehicle. Id., ¶¶ 74-84. Third, it is averred that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to be free from “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment when he was forced to remain in jail after a...