DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO 

Court Address: PO Box 192/307 Moffat Avenue 

 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 

Phone: (970) 725-3357

Plaintiff: 

DEBRA A. TURNER 

v. 

Defendants: 

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF 

THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO; 

and 

RODNEY D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as 

Sheriff of Grand County, also known as the Grand 

County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff’s Office, and in 

his individual capacity. 

 

 • COURT USE ONLY •

 Case Number: 2009CV378 

 Courtroom: 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s (renewed1

) Motion To Amend 

Complaint. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the separate (renewed) responses of the both 

Defendant the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Grand, State of Colorado (the 

“BOCC”) and Defendant Rodney D. Johnson (the “Sheriff”), the Sheriff’s Supplemental 

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint, and Plaintiff’s reply to the Sheriff’s 

Supplemental Response. The Court finds and rules as follows: 

 Pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (“C.R.C.P.”) 15(a), once a responsive 

pleading has been filed (which happened in this case), a party may only amend a pleading by 

leave of the Court or by written consent of the adverse party. Here, the Defendants object to 

 

1

 Some of the pleadings are renewed because this matter was removed to Federal Court for six months and the 

Federal Court denied all pending motions before returning the matter to State Court. 

EFILED Document 

CO Grand County District Court 14th JD 

Filing Date: Sep 8 2011 12:26PM MDT 

Filing ID: 39714469 

Review Clerk: Linda Manguso

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 10 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff’s motion. C.R.C.P. 15(a) specifically states that “leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.” 

 In this matter, the Plaintiff seeks to add a third claim to her complaint against both the 

BOCC and the Sheriff alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 The Defendants object, arguing that the Plaintiff has caused undue delay in this matter 

and that the amendment is futile. 

The Court partially grants the Plaintiff’s motion. The Court allows the Plaintiff to amend 

her complaint to add the third claim she seeks against the Sheriff, but not against the BOCC. 

 The Court finds the Plaintiff has not caused undue delay in this matter. “ . . . although 

delay is not sufficient basis for denying an amendment, it is still a valid factor to e considered by 

the trial court in conjunction other factors, including the past history of the case.” Polk v. 

Denver District Court, 849 P.2d 23, 26 (Colo. 1993). While this matter has been delayed, the 

majority of the delay has come from this Court failing to rule in a timely manner due to this 

judge’s work load and the Defendants’ removal of this matter to Federal Court for six months. If 

the Plaintiff contributed to the delay in this matter (and the Court is not saying she did), it was on 

a tertiary basis. 

 The Court finds the amendment is futile as to the BOCC, but not as to the Sheriff. “The 

doctrine of futility authorizes a trial court to deny leave to amend pleadings if doing so would be 

futile.” Benton v. Adams, 56 P.2d 81, 86 (Colo. 2002). Relying on the doctrine of respondeat 

superior, this Court, when it granted the BOCC’s Motion to Dismiss, held that the Sheriff is 

separate from the BOCC, citing Tunget v. Board of County Commissioners of Delta County, 992 

P.2d 650, 651- 652 (Colo. App. 1999). The Court agrees with Sheriff that the BOCC has no 

authority over the hiring or firing of employees of the Sheriff. Bristol v. Board of County 

Commissioners of County of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2002). As a result, 

Plaintiff’s amendment to the complaint seeking relief via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the BOCC is 

futile. The Court, on the other hand, does not find the amendment is futile as to the Sheriff. The 

Sheriff provided this Court with no case law that would prove the amendment futile as to the 

Sheriff. While the jury verdict in a factually similar case may be of note to both sides in this 

case, it is not grounds for the Court to find an amendment to a complaint futile. 

 The Court orders the Plaintiff to file a new amended complaint in accordance with this 

order by September 28, 2011. The Sheriff shall file any responsive pleading within twenty days 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 10 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

after the Plaintiff files her new amended complaint. 

Dated this 8th day of September, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

 __________________________________ 

 Mary C. Hoak 

 District Court Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 10 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3