Smith v. WCDTF

1

NATHAN J. SMITH and HOLLY M. SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. WCDTF, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01738-SBP

United States District Court, D. Colorado

July 9, 2024

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER BY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN PROSE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the court on three dispositive motions (1) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants associated with Grand Junction, Colorado, ECF No. 40; (2) a motion to dismiss filed by four Colorado state court judges, ECF No. 41; and (3) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants affiliated with Mesa County, Colorado, ECF No. 70. This court has reviewed the motions, the applicable case law, and the entire case file, and concludes that oral argument will not materially assist in the resolution of the motions. The court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the motions to dismiss be GRANTED and that the case be dismissed in its entirety, as against all Defendants, including those who have not been served or appeared in this matter.^[1] The court further DENIES two motions filed by Plaintiffs, which are rendered moot by the court's recommendation. ECF No. 81 (“Motion to Request Judges Instruction”); ECF No. 82 (“Motion to Request District Attorney to Produce 55000 Page Discovery to This Court”).

BACKGROUND

I. The Ongoing State Criminal Proceedings Against Plaintiffs

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Nathan J. Smith and Holly M. Smith (also known as Holly Marie Whittaker-Smith) were arrested by officers of the Mesa County, Colorado, Sheriffs Office for possession of schedule I and schedule II controlled substances in violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 18-18-403.5(2), both level 1 drug misdemeanors, and possession with intent to distribute more than fifty pounds of marijuana in violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 18-406(2)(b), a level 1 drug felony. People v. Holly Marie Whittaker-Smith, No. 2021CR917(Mesa Cnty. District Court), 6/22/2021 Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest at 2 (Register of Actions at 16); People v. Nathan James Smith, No. 2021CR918 (Mesa Cnty. District Court), 6/22/2021 Affidavit in Support of Warrantless Arrest at 2 (Register of Actions at 12).^[2] In addition, Nathan Smith was arrested for possession of a weapon by a previous offender in violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 18-12-108, a class 6 felony. Nathan Smith Arrest Affidavit at 2.^[3] According to the arrest affidavits, while executing a sealed search warrant on property where Plaintiffs were known to reside, officers with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Grand Junction Police Department discovered 30 pounds of processed marijuana and 118 unprocessed flowering marijuana plants in an airplane hangar on the property.^[4] Affidavits at 2. In Plaintiffs' bedroom in the main residence, officers located suspected methamphetamine and suspected psilocybin mushrooms; a .50 caliber Smith & Wesson Magnum handgun, which Nathan Smith was not authorized to have because of a previous felony conviction; and processed marijuana inside plastic totes-“[t]he same plastic totes were located inside the hangar with processed marijuana from the grow.” Id.

Thus began the state criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, which are ongoing. See Nathan Smith Register of Actions at 1 (showing filing dated 7/1/2024); Whittaker-Smith Register of Actions at 1 (showing filing dated 7/1/2024).^[5]

II. The Instant Litigation

Plaintiffs filed the instant litigation on July 10, 2023. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs raise numerous allegations against nearly eighty defendants, most of whom have not been served or entered an appearance in this case. Regardless, mindful of its duty to pro se litigants,^[6] this court has carefully reviewed the densely-written 39-page Complaint. From that review, a fundamental point emerges: the instant litigation is a direct attack on the ongoing state criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs in Mesa County District Court. The following allegations-including, notably, allegations focused on Plaintiffs' defenses in the criminal case-illustrate the point^[7]:

• “Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested, unlawfully detained, twice, wrongfully charged, wrongfully accused, their home was destroyed by the unnecessary excessive force, their home was illegally confiscated from them, arrested by the wrong jurisdiction on private property on a private road.” (7)

• “Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested for a crime they did not commit. Defendants' own surveillance reports, recordings, photos, and case story will prove this.” (6)

• There has been “unnecessary delay of due process rights, [Plaintiffs'] rights to speedy trial delayed” in the state criminal proceeding. (8)

• “The plaintiffs were falsely charged and accused with the following list of charges” in the state criminal proceedings [listing charges]. (18)

• It has taken “almost 24 months to get [Plaintiffs] to preliminary hearings” in the state criminal proceedings. (19)

• “The statutes of limitations are up on several of the counts against [Plaintiffs] and should have been dropped and dismissed, because they were illegally obtained.” (19)

• “The judge [in the state criminal proceedings] completely stripped plaintiffs bare of all of their civil rights, constitutional rights, tenant rights, buyer rights.” (20)

• Plaintiffs are “not liable [in the underlying criminal cases], we're not responsible, we're not the owners, we're not in a contract, we're not in a lease, we're not tenants, we're not aware of any marijuana, we're not associated with Growers.” (22)

• “Planes are only ever on the property maybe seven days a month.” (22)

• “If Plaintiffs were arrested and charged with the tenants' grow, but the Plaintiffs were not the one legally in control legally liable for legally the owners, wouldn't it ring true that the actual sellers should've been arrested instead of the Plaintiffs?” (22)

• “These particular tenants were the target of a western Colorado drug task force investigation, already in full affect, and the tenant had already been on law enforcement radar for another grow operation across town where he had 500 plants.” (24)

• “The [state] trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss [the charges against Plaintiffs] was an abuse of discretion.” (33)

• “A more ill-conceived symphony of criminal procedure with the [state] court as both composer and conductor is difficult to envision. Absent dismissal [of the state court charges] the prejudice to both the People and the defendant, the potential damage to the court's image and integrity and the inexcusable waste of judicial resources is self-evident and inevitable.” (38)

Plaintiffs allege that the approximately eighty Defendants they have sued here-a group consisting of state court judges and prosecutors, multiple state and municipal agencies and officers, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Drug Enforcement Agency- violated their rights under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments, and various Colorado criminal statutes. They raise a plethora of claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, and “wrongful arrest and unlawful detainment,” along with claims that purport to attack their conditions of confinement during the two days they were confined in the Mesa County Detention Facility following their arrests on June 22, 2021. See generally Complaint; see also id. at 10, 13 (allegations concerning conditions in “detention cell” during two-day confinement). While Plaintiffs seek hundreds of thousands of dollars in monetary damages from the various Defendants, the essence of the relief they demand is for this court to direct the “DA to drop, and dismiss this cases and ALL charges against us” and to order that they be “exonerated” in those criminal proceedings and receive “exoneration awards.” (8) They “request this court to intervene and provide them a solution or award for the outrageous conduct of the people involved,” including the state court “judge and the pretrial services” officers assigned to their state criminal cases. (19)

The record subject to judicial notice by this court highlights Plaintiffs' use of the instant federal lawsuit as a device to compel the state court to bend to their will in the criminal proceedings. For example, they have filed a “Formal Motion Requesting Substitution of Judge” in the state proceedings, pointing to the instant litigation and the fact that one of the nearly fourscore defendants here is Twenty-First Judicial District Judge Valerie Robison, the state judicial officer who is presiding over their criminal proceedings-along with Defendants the Twenty-First Judicial District Attorney's Office, the District Attorney, and each Assistant District Attorney who has touched their criminal cases. See 1/12/2024 Motion, Case No. 2021CR918; see also Complaint at 4 (listing these persons as Defendants). In seeking Judge Robison's removal from the criminal cases, Plaintiffs' defense counsel “stress[ed]” that “[r]egardless of the outcome of 23-CV-1738-SBP, the filing of the federal suit alone creates the appearance of a conflict in this matter.” See 1/12/2024 Motion ¶¶ 13, 15, Case No. 2021CR918 (emphasis added); see also 1/12/2024 Formal Motion Requesting Substitution of Judge ¶¶ 13, 15, Case No. 2021CR917 (same).

Judge Robison did not agree:

In this case, the Defendant asserts that because a federal lawsuit was filed, the Court must recuse itself to prevent any appearance of bias. This argument is not supported by any factual evidence of an actual bias. Hence, the Court determines the filing of a federal lawsuit naming the Court under the circumstances of this case, is not grounds for disqualification.

2/...