Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Vianez v. Warden at Florence, CO
On Sept. 1, 2023, Juan Vianez, a prisoner at the U.S. Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado a short handwritten pleading raising several vague complaints about his treatment. The district court characterized the pleading as an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S. Code 2241.
According to the opinion, since August 2014, Vianez has been under filing restrictions imposed by the Colorado federal district court. The restrictions were imposed after the court found he was either “incapable of complying with” the court’s orders or was “maliciously and purposely filing nonsensical pleadings in an attempt to abuse the federal judiciary system.”
Because Vianez didn’t comply with the filing restrictions when he filed his application under U.S.C. 2241, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
Vianez’s pro se brief in this court claims to raise two issues: denial of the right to bail and denial of a right to a jury trial. The brief didn’t explain the basis of those claims nor connect them to the allegations in his original district-court pleading, the opinion noted.
Vianez’s brief didn’t challenge the validity of the district court’s filing restrictions or contend he conformed to them. These failures waive his right to appellate review of the dismissal.
After evaluation, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Vianez’s U.S.C. 2241 application and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Five Points Management Group v. Campaign, et al.
Hartman Art Studios, LLC owns real property commonly described as 3114 Larimer St., Denver, Colorado. Campaign Inc. entered a lease agreement to rent the property from Hartman for use as a furniture showroom and residence. Bradley Sewell, the founder of Campaign, personally guaranteed the lease and used the premises as a residence and place of business. Pursuant to the lease, Campaign tendered to Hartman a security deposit of $27,000.
The parties signed a five-year lease, but after only eight months, Campaign’s board voted to dissolve the corporation, and the lease was terminated. At termination, Campaign owed Hartman $67,500 in unpaid rent, the opinion noted. The lease permitted Hartman to retain the security deposit at the lease’s termination as payment for outstanding rent.
Hartman and Sewell also agreed orally Hartman would retain the security deposit, but Hartman didn’t notify Campaign in writing of Hartman’s retention of the deposit.
In the current action, Five Points Management Group obtained a judgment against Campaign and Sewell from the district court. In execution of this judgment, the district court directed a writ of garnishment served on Hartman for any “personal property owed to or owned by” Campaign or Sewell. But Hartman declined to surrender the $27,000 security deposit. Hartman argued it had no personal property belonging to Campaign and Bradley, and the security deposit was ineligible for garnishment because Hartman had previously retained the deposit as a “setoff against unpaid rent.”
In response, Five Points filed its traverse of answer to writ of garnishment, presenting two arguments under Colorado law. First, Five Points argued Hartman couldn’t retain the security deposit as a setoff against unpaid rent because Section 38-12-103 of the Colorado Revised Statutes required Campaign to give written notice of retainment within 60 days of the lease’s termination. Second, Five Points argued the Security Deposit Statute entitled Five Points to seek treble damages for Campaign’s willful failure to return the security deposit to Hartman.
The district court denied Five Points’s traverse. It held under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 103, Hartman had properly set off the security deposit against unpaid rent under the terms of the lease and Five Points couldn’t garnish the security deposit. The district court also held that Five Points couldn’t collect treble damages. Five Points appealed both holdings.
After evaluation, the 10th Circuit held the Security Deposit Statute doesn’t require Hartman to give Campaign a written statement of accounting to retain the security deposit as a setoff against unpaid rent. Hartman properly retained the security deposit under the terms of the lease, and Campaign couldn’t recover the security deposit from Hartman, the opinion noted. Because Campaign couldn’t recover the security deposit from Hartman, Colorado law prevents Five Points from garnishing the security deposit. And because Five Points couldn’t garnish the security deposit from Campaign, Five Points can’t receive treble damages under the Security Deposit Statute.