Dollinger v. CDOC

24CA1090 Dollinger v CDOC 04-10-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1090
Crowley County District Court No. 22CV30
Honorable Samuel S. Vigil, Judge

Shawn D. Dollinger,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections and Warden of
Crowley County Correctional Facility,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE PAWAR
Grove and Bernard*, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced April 10, 2025

Shawn D. Dollinger, Pro Se

Hall & Evans, L.L.C., Andrew D. Ringel, Jeffrey D. Clarke, Denver, Colorado,
for Defendants-Appellees

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024.
¶1 Plaintiff, Shawn D. Dollinger, appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal the

magistrate’s order. The district court denied the motion as

untimely. We agree with Dollinger that the motion was timely. We

therefore reverse and remand with directions.

¶2 Dollinger, an incarcerated inmate, filed a pro se complaint

under C.R.C.P. 106.5 against defendants, the executive director of

the Colorado Department of Corrections and the warden of the

prison in which Dollinger was incarcerated. The complaint

challenged Dollinger’s Code of Penal Discipline (COPD) conviction.1

¶3 A magistrate affirmed the COPD conviction on July 9, 2023, in

a written order. Under the applicable rules, Dollinger had twenty-

one days from the date the magistrate’s order was mailed to him to

either appeal the order or request an extension of time in which to

appeal it. See C.R.M. 7(a)(5)-(6).

¶4 The record shows that the magistrate’s order was mailed to

Dollinger on July 12, 2023. This made Dollinger’s deadline August

2, 2023.

1 The substance of the COPD conviction and the grounds of the

complaint are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal.

1
¶5 The district court ruled that Dollinger’s motion for extension of

time was untimely because it was filed on August 7, 2023. It is true

that the district court received the motion on August 7. But the

record shows that Dollinger placed his motion in the legal mail

system at his correctional facility on August 2, 2023, the last day of

the twenty-one-day window. This means that Dollinger’s motion

was timely filed. See C.R.C.P. 5(f) (“[A] pleading or paper filed or

served by an inmate confined to an institution is timely filed or

served if deposited in the institution’s internal mailing system on or

before the last day for filing or serving.”). We conclude that the

district court erred by holding otherwise.

¶6 The district court’s order is reversed, and the case is

remanded to the district court with directions to rule on the merits

of Dollinger’s motion for extension of time and conduct any further

proceedings that are appropriate and consistent with this opinion.

JUDGE GROVE and JUDGE BERNARD concur.

2