Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180326_0000395.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:24:53+00:00

Document:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the November 20, 2017 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 32) that Defendant's “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)” (ECF No. 18) (“Motion to Dismiss”) be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” An objection to a recommendation is properly made if it is both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known as 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). An objection is sufficiently specific if it “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.” Id. In conducting its review, “[t]he district court judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) is a request upon the court to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). Dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief. See SBM Site Services, LLC v. Garrett, 2012 WL 628619, *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2012).
When a court's subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the court may review materials outside the pleadings without converting the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Davis ex rel. Davis v. U.S., 342 F.3d 1282, 1296 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating that “when a party challenges the allegations supporting subject-matter jurisdiction, the ‘court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts'” (quoting Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir. 1995)); Pringle v. United States, 208 F.3d 1220, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000); Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003.
Further, the Court is mindful of Plaintiffs' pro se status, and accordingly reads their pleadings and filings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Trackwell v. United States Gov't, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). The Court, however, cannot act as advocate for Plaintiffs, who still must comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003).
On April 16, 2016, an El Paso County Court entered a judgment that prohibited the [D]efendant from destroying [P]laintiffs' property described as “modular structures” located on Date Street in Colorado Spring[s], Colorado. On March 14, 2017, the [D]efendant entered Plaintiffs' property and destroyed all 32 items under the authority of El Paso Ordinance 06-02 which is a rubbish ordinance. On 13 April 2017, [P]laintiffs received a report from Defendant attorney for the cost of $109, 500 as a result of the destruction of Plaintiffs' property. Defendant seeks to recover this cost [by] attaching it to [Plaintiffs'] property tax bill without the authority of law/ Plaintiffs believe that the Ordinance 06-02 did not authorize the County of El Paso to declare [Plaintiffs'] property rubbish, remove, and destroy the modular structures, trailers, heating and air conditioning units.
(ECF No. 6 at 3.) Plaintiffs challenge these actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (id. at 7), claiming violations of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (id. at 11).
The El Paso County Sheriff's Office is by this warrant authorized to assist the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, acting through employees of El Paso County and any agent of a private trash, waste disposal, or demolition/debris removal company needed for this purpose, in the entry upon the properties identified as 4375 Date Street (further identified as El Paso County Parcel Nos. 6326203039 and 6326203002) 4375 Date Street, with legal descriptions of LOT 35 BLK 3 PARK VISTA ADD, EX PT TO CITY BY BK 6602-357 and LOT 34 BLK 3 PARK VISTA ADD and seizing the items listed in paragraph 3 which constitute “rubbish” above, to include the modular components, within ten (10) days following the date of this Warrant, during any time of the day or night. Seizure of any items constituting rubbish may be done by any method practicable, such as demolishing on site, removing, and then disposing according to law. Plaintiff, its employees and contractors, are authorized to fence off the subject properties during the course of removal for safety reasons. Entry authorized by this warrant is limited to the persons, employees, and agents described herein and limited to the purposes described herein so that the property no longer violates El Paso County Ordinance 06-02 and the nuisance is abated. The El Paso County Sheriff's Office is specifically granted the authority to remove any persons from the properties who are not authorized to be present on the subject property and/or who may interfere with the execution of this Order.

References: § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983