1 

DISTRICT COURT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO 

Post Office Box 192, 307 Moffat Avenue 

Hot Sulphur Springs, CO 80451 

970-725-3357 

Plaintiff: DEBRA A. TURNER 

v. 

Defendant: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO; 

GRAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, also known 

as the Grand County Sheriff’s Office; and RODNEY D. 

JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Grand County.

COURT USE ONLY 

 Case Number: 09CV378 

ORDER 

 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sheriff Rodney D. Johnson’s Motion to 

Dismiss the Sheriff’s Department and Plaintiff’s First Claim For Relief. The Court reviewed the 

Sheriff’s motion, Plaintiff’s response, and the Sheriff’s reply. The Court finds and rules as follows: 

FACTS

 Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of her termination from employment with the Grand County 

Sheriff’s office on December 19, 2008, where she worked as a detentions deputy. 

ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE ‘SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IS A LEGAL ENTITY 

CAPABLE OF BEING SUED IN COLORADO COURTS. 

2. WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF, WRONGFUL 

DISCHARGE, ARISES IN TORT, OR COULD ARISE IN TORT AND IS 

THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL 

IMMUNITY ACT (“CGIA”), COLORADO REVISED STATUTE 

(“C.R.S.”) § 24-10-106. 

3. EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIM IS AN ACTION 

FOR WHICH IMMUNITY IS WAIVED UNDER THE CGIA, WHETHER 

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AS REQUIRED 

UNDER THE CGIA, C.R.S. § 24-10-109. 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 8 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and must be viewed in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Bebo Construction Company v. Mattox & O’Brien, P.C., 998 P.2d 475, 

477 (Colo. App. 2000). In reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint, the Court is permitted to 

consider only those matters stated in the complaint and must not go beyond the confines of the 

pleadings. Fluid Technology v. CVJ Axles, Inc., 964 P.2d 614, 616 (Colo. App. 1998). 

RULING

1. THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IS NOT A LEGAL ENTITY CAPABLE OF 

BEING SUED IN COLORADO COURTS

 The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Grand County Sheriff’s Department 

because the claims are duplicative of the claims against Sheriff Johnson in his official capacity. 

 The Sheriff’s Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued in Colorado courts. 

The “Sheriff’s Department” is not a separate legal entity from the County Sheriff acting in his 

official capacity. As an elected official, the County Sheriff has responsibility over the office of 

the Sheriff. “If the action is determined to be against the Sheriff in his official capacity, it is 

effectively an action against his office, and the immunity principles applicable to suits against 

the state or public entities apply.” Carothers v. Archuleta County Sheriff, 159 P.3d 647, 652 

(Colo. App. 2006). 

 

2. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF, WRONGFUL DISCHARGE,

ARISES IN TORT, OR COULD ARISE IN TORT AND THEREFORE IS 

SUBJECT TO THE COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT 

(“CGIA”), C.R.S. § 24-10-106

Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim arises in tort, is not an exception under the Colorado 

Governmental Immunity Act and hereby dismissed: 

Wrongful discharge claims lie in tort. The Act bars all tort claims, 

except for those listed in C.R.S. § 24-10-106. Wrongful discharge 

is not one of the excepted claims. Koch v. Board of County 

Commrs. Of Costilla County, 774 F.Supp. 1275, 1276 (D. Colo. 

1991). 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 8 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3 

3. PLAINTIFF’S WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIM IS AN ACTION FOR 

WHICH IMMUNITY IS WAIVED UNDER THE CGIA AND PLAINTIFF DID 

NOT SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AS IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CGIA,

C.R.S. § 24-10-109.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s first claim because Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim is an 

action for which immunity is waived under the CGIA and Plaintiff did not serve a notice of her 

claim as required. 

 The CGIA requires a plaintiff claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity to file a 

written notice within one hundred eighty days after the date of the discovery of the injury . . . . 

C.R.S. 24-10-109(1). “Compliance with the provisions of this section shall be a jurisdictional 

prerequisite to any action brought under the provisions of this article, and failure of compliance shall 

forever bar any such action.” Id. “Colorado courts strictly construe section 24-10-109(1) and 

consistently hold that ‘complying with the notice of claim . . . is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

suit.’” Aspen Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, LLC v. Aspen Valley Hosp. Dist., 353 F.3d 832, 

839 (10th Cir. 2003). 

 WHEREFORE, the Court grants the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Sheriff’s 

Department and Plaintiff’s First Claim For Relief against Sheriff Rodney D. Johnson. 

August 22, 2010 

______________________ ___________________________________ 

Date Mary C. Hoak, District Court Judge 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 8 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3