Ledford v. Krieger et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB
CHARLES WILLIAM LEDFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCIA S. KRIEGER,
MICHAEL J. WATANABE,
JAIME A. PEÑA,
DAVID STEINMAN,
VIRGINIA L. GRADY,
GREG M. FLYNN, and,
CLARISSA L. COATE.
Defendants.
ORDER
This order addresses two motions filed by Plaintiff Charles William Ledford. The
first is Plaintiff’s Response to Court Ruling and Statement of Facts. ECF No. 56. The
Court construes this filing as an objection to United States Magistrate Judge Maritza
Dominguez Braswell’s denials of Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny Entry of Appearance. ECF
Nos. 49, 54. For the reasons below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and affirms
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s orders.
The second motion is Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification from the Court and the
Judge. ECF No. 62. As set forth below, the Court denies that motion as moot.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
I. 	SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF
You filed this lawsuit on September 5, 2023, asserting claims against seven current
and former federal employees. Richard Tegtmeier entered his appearance on behalf of
Defendant Virginia Grady, and J. Chris Larson entered his appearance on behalf of the
other six Defendants. You objected to Mr. Larson’s entry of appearance as improper. This
Court referred your motion to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell, who denied your
objection. In your objection of her orders denying your motions, you failed to show that
her orders were clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as required by the applicable legal
standards. Therefore, the Court is overruling your objection and affirming her orders.
You also filed a Request for Clarification from the Court. As explained in more
detail below, the Court is denying that motion. The Court will apply the relevant and
applicable law to the facts of your case at the appropriate juncture.
II. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against seven current and former
federal employees. ECF No. 13 (Am. Compl.). He alleges violations of his Fourth and
Fifth Amendment rights stemming from a 2004 criminal case. Id. at 1–3, 6–8. In that
underlying case, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United
States. On June 27, 2005, Judge Marcia S. Krieger sentenced Plaintiff to 24 months in
prison and ordered him to make a restitution payment of $506,000. Despite pleading
guilty, Plaintiff argued—and continues to argue—that the government arrested the wrong
person.
In this civil case, like in his criminal case, Plaintiff alleges that “the defendant and
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
I were not the same entity and I was not a party to [that] action.” Id. at 6. He thus brings
claims against Judge Krieger and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for wrongfully
denying him his right to an “Identity Hearing.” ECF No. 13 at 1. He also filed suit against
his federal defender, prosecutors, and other federal employees involved in his criminal
case. Id. at 1–2.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides a party the opportunity to object to
a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter. “The district judge in the
case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468
F.3d 642, 658 (10th Cir. 2006) (district courts must “defer to the magistrate judge’s ruling”
on non-dispositive matters “unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law” (citations
omitted)). “[M]ere disagreement with [a] Magistrate Judge[’s] recommendation does not
make the recommendation incorrect or outside the bounds of his authority.” Witt v.
Colorado, No. 22-CV-02242-CNS-NRN, 2023 WL 345960, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2023)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings
and holds them to less stringent standards than formal filings drafted by lawyers. See
United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 2018). However, the Court will not act
as 	Plaintiff’s 	advocate, 	and 	he 	is 	governed 	by 	the 	same 	procedural 	rules 	and
requirements of substantive law that govern other litigants. See Dodson v. Bd. of Cnty.
Comm’rs, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1235–36 (D. Colo. 2012).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
IV. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Plaintiff’s Challenge to Defense Counsel’s Entry of Appearance
Plaintiff filed an Objection and Motion to Deny Entry of Appearance challenging
U.S. Attorney Cole Finegan’s entry of appearance. ECF No. 47. Mr. Finegan, however,
did not enter his appearance in this matter. While his name appeared on the notice of
appearance, Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Chris Larson entered his appearance, not Mr.
Finegan. ECF No. 42. Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell denied Plaintiff’s motion,
correctly finding that
Plaintiff has presented no legal authority demonstrating that it
is improper for Cole Finnegan’s name to be mentioned in
Chris Larson’s Entry of Appearance. Rather, Attorney Cole
Finegan is the United States Attorney for the District of
Colorado. 	In 	this 	role, 	his 	name 	regularly 	and 	properly
appears 	in 	cases 	where 	the 	United 	States 	or 	federal
employees are a party. Finally, the Court finds that the entry
of appearance was not submitted to mislead the Court, harass
Plaintiff, or cause delay. In reviewing Plaintiff’s papers, the
Court is mindful that he appears pro se; therefore, the Court
reviews his pleadings and other papers liberally and holds
them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys. Smith v. Allbaugh, 921 F.3d 1261, 1269 (10th Cir.
2019). Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s pro se status does not entitle
him to application of different rules of civil procedure. See
Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th Cir. 2018).
Thus, the Court reminds Plaintiff that his filings should be
warranted and properly supported. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
ECF No. 49. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Objection and Motion to Deny Entry of
Appearance. ECF No. 52. Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell denied that motion as
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
well. ECF No. 54.1 Plaintiff then filed the instant motions. ECF Nos. 56 & 57.2 Plaintiff’s
filings appear on the docket as an “Objection/Appeal,” but each filing is titled “Response
to Court Ruling and Statement of Facts.” Id.
In his objection, instead of challenging the substance of Magistrate Judge
Dominguez Braswell’s rulings, he appears to challenge her authority: “Does a Magistrate
have any lawful authority to adjudicate in common-law? If so, please provide a copy and
cite of their authority.” ECF No. 56 at 2.3 Construing Plaintiff’s pleading liberally, the Court
assumes that he also seeks a review of Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s orders
in addition to certification of her authority to rule on nondispositive motions.
First, as the Court cited in its order referring the case to Magistrate Judge
Dominguez Braswell, ECF No. 8, Congress granted Magistrate Judges the authority to
issue rulings on nondispotive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (a district judge “may
designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before
the court”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim
or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must
promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order
1 Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell entered the following order: “In this Motion, Plaintiff reiterates his
argument that attorney Cole Finegan cannot enter an appearance in this case. The Court already
addressed Plaintiff's concern in the recent Minute Order 49 and declines to revisit this matter. See United
States v. Blanco-Ochoa, 18-cr-546-MSK-GPG, 2020 WL 130455, at *3 (declining to readdress issue the
court previously ruled on).” ECF No. 54.
2 Plaintiff filed two objections, but these filings are identical and thus the Court only addresses ECF No. 56
in this order.
3 For all future filings, Plaintiff is reminded that the Court will not act as Plaintiff’s advocate. See Dodson,
878 F. Supp. 2d at 1235–36. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide authority that advances Plaintiff’s legal
position.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
stating the decision.”); see also Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 668
(2015) (acknowledging that “Congress has also authorized the appointment of bankruptcy
and magistrate judges, who do not enjoy the protections of Article III, to assist Article III
courts in their work.”). Plaintiff’s challenge to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s
authority is unavailing.
Second, assuming Plaintiff objects to an Assistant U.S. Attorney representing
Defendants, that challenge is equally unavailing. Plaintiff states that Defendants are
“living men and women sued in their personal capacity and not their official capacity,”
suggesting that the entry of appearance of attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office is
improper. ECF No. 56 at 2. He also references the Judiciary Act of 1789 and quotes
language stating that parties may plead and manage their own causes of action
personally. Id. But as Defendants point out, in all types of lawsuits—including those under
common law—litigants are entitled to be represented by counsel.
Moreover, when, as here, individual officers of the United States are sued, lawyers
from the U.S. Department of Justice may provide representation when the lawsuit pertains
to acts or omissions taken pursuant to the Defendants’ work as officers of the United
States. 28 C.F.R. § 50.15 (providing authority for the Department of Justice to represent
both current and former employees of the United States). Therefore, the Department of
Justice is authorized to represent the Defendants in this matter.
In sum, Plaintiff fails to show, let alone argue, that Magistrate Judge Dominguez
Braswell’s orders were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. His objection without merit
and thus overruled.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
B. 	Request for Clarification from the Court and the Judge
In his Request for Clarification from the Court and the Judge, Plaintiff makes a
series of demands to the Court. ECF No. 62 at 1–2. He states that he needs the Court’s
“SIMPLE and CONCISE answer” to four questions. Id. The four questions can be boiled
down to one: Will the Court adjudicate this case at common law? Id.
The Court denies this request as moot. The Court will apply the relevant and
applicable law to the facts of Plaintiff’s case at the appropriate time. Indeed, that is the
pivotal role of a court. The Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to elaborate on legal issues
before they are properly before the Court.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Consistent with the above analysis, the Court makes the following rulings:
• 	Plaintiff’s Response to Court Ruling and Statement of Facts—which this Court
construes as an objection to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s order, ECF
No. 56, is OVERRULED;
• 	Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s orders denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny
Entry of Appearance, ECF Nos. 49 and 54, are AFFIRMED; and
• 	Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification from the Court and the Judge, ECF No. 62, is
DENIED.
DATED this 29th day of April 2024.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 64 filed 04/29/24 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7