Menu icon Access the Business Officer Magazine menu by clicking or touching here.
Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo, click or touch this logo to return to the homepage Click or touch the Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo to return to the homepage. Search

Robledo v. Executive Director of the Colorado Dep’t of Corrections.

2020 COA 135. No. 19CA1903. Inmate Lawsuits—Filing Fees—In Forma Pauperis—CRS § 13-17.5-103(2)(b).

September 10, 2020

Robledo is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). He filed three actions challenging different prison disciplinary convictions he sustained. In one case the district court denied his in forma pauperis (IFP) motion and later dismissed the action after he failed to pay the required filing fee. In the other two cases the district court granted the IFP motions and, as required by CRS § 13-17.5-103(2)(b), ordered Robledo to make continuing monthly payments equaling 20% of the preceding month’s deposits to his inmate account until the filing fees were paid in full. The court ultimately dismissed these two actions as moot. More than six years later, Robledo filed identical motions, each titled “Motion to Consolidate Restitution and Garnishment,” in the three cases. The district court denied the motions.

On appeal, Robledo argued that the district court erred in denying his motions, alleging the DOC continued to make “duplicitous extractions” from his account. Though Robledo cited no legal authority for his motions, the Court of Appeals reviewed them under CRCP 60(b)(4) and (5) for an abuse of discretion. The Court concluded that Robledo did not file the motions within a reasonable time, and even if they had been timely, they failed to set forth valid substantive grounds for relief.

The orders were affirmed.

Official Colorado Court of Appeals proceedings can be found at the Colorado Court of Appeals website.

Related Topics

Inmate Lawsuits Filing Fees In Forma Pauperis CRS § 13-17.5-103(2)(b)

Back to the From the Courts Page