Webb v. Martin County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB
WILLIAM JAROD WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SHERIFF WILLIAM SNYDER, in his official capacity,
DETECTIVE NICOLE J. WALTERS, in her individual capacity,
SERGEANT JOSEPH DECKARD, in his individual capacity,
JOHN DOE MARTIN COUNTY DEPUTIES,
THOMAS BAKKEDAHL,
KAITLIN LUSTGARTEN,
DAVID J. LUCERO,
JEFF CHOSTNER,
JOHN BUDENSIEK, and
JOHN DOE PUEBLO COUNTY DEPUTIES,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter is before the Court on two Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge issued by the Honorable Maritza Dominguez Braswell on November 20
and November 26, 2024. [Doc. 43; Doc. 54]. Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends
that various Motions filed by Plaintiff William Jarod Webb (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Webb”) be
denied. 	See 	[Doc. 	43 	at 	2; 	Doc. 	54 	at 	1]. 	Mr. 	Webb 	has 	objected 	to 	those
Recommendations, [Doc. 56; Doc. 58], as well as Judge Dominguez Braswell’s non-
dispositive order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Discovery, see [Doc. 57; Doc. 61;
Doc. 62]. 	For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s objections are respectfully
OVERRULED and Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendations are ADOPTED.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 10

2
LEGAL STANDARDS
I. 	Rule 72(a)
When a magistrate judge issues an order on a non-dispositive matter, “[a] party
may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “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.”
Id. 	Under this standard of review, a magistrate judge’s findings should not be rejected
merely because the district court would have decided the matter differently. Anderson v.
City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). A district court must affirm a magistrate
judge’s decision unless “on the entire evidence” the district court “is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 	Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow
Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).
II. 	Rule 72(b)
A 	district 	court 	may 	refer 	a 	dispositive 	motion1 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge 	for
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The district court “must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 	“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review
by the district court or for appellate review.” 	United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d
1 Judge Dominguez Braswell recognized that many of Plaintiff’s Motions are “de facto
requests for preliminary injunctive relief.” 	[Doc. 43 at 2 n.3]. 	Courts in this District
regularly treat motions for injunctive relief as dispositive motions. 	“For purpose of
reference, motions for preliminary injunction are generally treated as dispositive motions,
and 	thus, 	the 	Court 	reviews 	the 	objected-to 	portions 	of 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommendation de novo.” Georgacarakos v. Wiley, No. 07-cv-01712-MSK-MEH, 2008
WL 4216265, at *19 (D. Colo. Sept. 12, 2008).
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 10

3
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). 	Specific objections permit “the district judge to focus
attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”
Id. at 1059 (quotation omitted).
III. 	Pro Se Filings
Pro se filings are entitled to liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520–21 (1972) (per curiam). But the Court cannot and does not act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), and applies the same
procedural rules and substantive law to pro se parties as to represented parties, see
Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002); Dodson v. Bd. of
Cnty. Comm’rs, 878 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1236 (D. Colo. 2012).
BACKGROUND
Judge Dominguez Braswell sets forth the factual circumstances of this case in her
November 20 Recommendation, see [Doc. 43 at 2–4], and Mr. Webb does not object to
this portion of the Recommendation, see [Doc. 58]. 	The Court thus adopts Judge
Dominguez Braswell’s recitation of the facts and incorporates it into this Order. Broadly
speaking, Mr. Webb takes issue with his pending criminal prosecution in Martin County,
Florida, and asks this Court to intervene and weigh in on various aspects of that
proceeding. To meet that end, Mr. Webb has filed various motions:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Extradition [Doc. 6];
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Florida Warrant [Doc. 7];
3. 	Plaintiff’s Notice of Unwarranted Bond Revocation and DA’s Motion for Non-
Testimonial Identification Procedure, [Doc. 25], wherein he asks the Court to
“review the decision to revoke [his] bond,” [id. at 2];
4. 	A Request for Emergency Stay Due to Immediate Extradition to Florida [Doc. 36];
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 10

4
5. 	A second Request for Emergency Stay Due to Immediate Extradition to Florida
[Doc. 37]; and
6. 	A Motion to Quash Governor’s Warrant [Doc. 45].
Mr. Webb also filed a Motion for Limited Discovery, seeking an opportunity to conduct
discovery into certain Colorado-based officials’ involvement in his arrest in the Florida
case. See [Doc. 57].
Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions asking the Court
to intervene in his state proceedings be denied based on the Younger abstention doctrine.
[Doc. 43 at 6–13 (addressing the first five Motions); Doc. 54 at 2–4 (addressing Plaintiff’s
Motion to Quash Governor’s Warrant)]; see also Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky
Mountain, LLC, 953 F.3d 660, 669–70 (10th Cir. 2020) (“Younger provides that a federal
court must abstain from deciding a case otherwise within the scope of its jurisdiction in
‘certain instances in which the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings
counsels against federal relief.’” (quoting Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,
72 (2013)).2 	Mr. Webb objects to the Recommendations, arguing that the Younger
abstention doctrine does not apply to this case. See [Doc. 56; Doc. 58].
ANALYSIS
I. 	Younger Abstention
The Younger abstention doctrine applies “only when the state proceeding falls into
one of the following categories: ‘(1) state criminal prosecutions, (2) civil enforcement
proceedings [that take on a quasi-criminal shape], and (3) civil proceedings involving
2 The Court notes that there are three pending Motions to Dismiss in this case, each of
which raises a Younger argument, among other arguments. See [Doc. 52 at 8; Doc. 67
at 5; Doc. 74 at 6]. 	Those Motions to Dismiss have been referred to Judge Dominguez
Braswell, and the Court does not pass on those Motions at this time.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 10

5
certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their
judicial function.’” Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. A-Quality Auto Sales, Inc., 98 F.4th
1307, 1317 (10th Cir. 2024) (quoting Graff v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc., 65 F.4th 500,
522 (10th Cir. 2023) (alteration in original)). 	If—and only if—the state court proceeding
falls within one of these three categories, the Court considers whether there is (1) an
ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the presence of an important state interest, and
(3) an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings. Id. Younger
abstention does not apply, however, if the Court “properly finds that the state proceeding
is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith.” Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.,
420 U.S. 592, 611 (1975) (quotation omitted).
II. 	Plaintiff’s Objections
Mr. Webb objects to Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendations and asserts
many reasons why he believes the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply to this
case. [Doc. 56; Doc. 58].
Ongoing State Proceeding. First, Mr. Webb argues that there is no ongoing state
proceeding because his criminal prosecution is in Florida, not Colorado, and “[t]he lack of
ongoing state proceedings in Colorado removes this case from the scope of the Younger
doctrine.” 	[Doc. 58 at 2]. 	This argument is unsupported by and contrary to established
legal authority. There is no requirement that the ongoing state proceeding be pending in
the same state as the parallel federal litigation, and federal courts routinely abstain under
Younger based on cases pending in another state. See, e.g., Adobe Sys. v. James, No.
2:10-cv-01228-TS, 2011 WL 573393, at *5 (D. Utah Feb. 15, 2011) (abstaining under
Younger due to pending California case); Pine Tree Cap., LLC v. BOKF, N.A., No. 20-cv-
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 10

6
00145-SWS, 2020 WL 6060926, at *5 (D. Wyo. Sept. 10, 2020) (abstaining under
Younger due to pending Texas case). Mr. Webb also argues that he is “out on bond with
no open or ongoing state court proceedings in which any filings could occur.” [Doc. 56 at
2–3]. 	But he provides no evidence that his Florida case has been dismissed, see [id.],
and Plaintiff’s release on bond is not determinative of whether the Florida case remains
pending.3
Opportunity to Raise Federal Claims in State Court. Plaintiff next argues that
he lacks an opportunity to raise his challenges to his state court prosecution in state court.
[Doc. 56 at 3; Doc. 58 at 2]. However, Plaintiff did not raise this argument in his various
filings in support of his Motions. 	See, e.g., [Doc. 6; Doc. 7; Doc. 25; Doc. 29; Doc. 30;
Doc. 36; Doc. 37]. 	He cannot raise this argument for the first time in an objection. See
United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In this circuit, theories
raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report are deemed
waived.”); see also NYW Civ. Practice Standard 72.3(b) (“Should the objecting party seek
to make arguments . . . were not raised before the Magistrate Judge, such party must
expressly identify those arguments and/or exhibits and explain why such omitted
arguments . . . should be considered, in the first instance, upon Objection.”).
3 The Court observes that one of Plaintiff’s filings references a bond revocation. 	See
[Doc. 25 at 2]. But about a month later, Plaintiff represented that he is out on bond. See
[Doc. 62 at 1]; see also [Doc. 45; Doc. 56; Doc. 62 (various filings submitted after Plaintiff’s
apparent bond revocation)]. 	Plaintiff has not filed any notice of change of address, as
required by Local Rule 5.1, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c) (“Notice of change of name,
mailing address, or telephone number of an unrepresented prisoner or party shall be filed
not later than five days after the change.”), and has continued to use his personal address
as his address of record, see [Doc. 25 at 1, 3; Doc. 62 at 3]. 	The Court also notes that
Plaintiff elected to become a CM/ECF e-filer, which means that as of October 29, 2024,
he has received service of Court orders via email, rather than United States mail. 	See
[Doc. 19].
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 10

7
Moreover, Mr. Webb’s arguments fail on their merits. He asserts that he lacks an
opportunity to raise his arguments in state court because “[h]is habeas petitions were
dismissed without hearings.” [Doc. 56 at 3]. But “[t]ypically, a plaintiff has an adequate
opportunity to raise federal claims in state court unless state law clearly bars the
interposition of the federal statutory and constitutional claims.” 	Crown Point I, LLC v.
Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass’n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). The
fact that Plaintiff was denied the relief sought does not demonstrate that he lacks an
opportunity to raise his challenges in state court. See Andrew v. Plotz, No. 20-cv-03240-
LTB-GPG, 2020 WL 13832010, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2020) (“The fact that [the
plaintiff’s] claims have not been successful does not demonstrate he lacks an adequate
opportunity to present them.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 11664739
(D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2021).
Bad Faith. Plaintiff also argues that he “has provided ample evidence of bad faith
. . . in the Florida prosecution” and that “[t]he Magistrate Judge failed to fully consider
th[is] argument and [its] impact on the applicability of Younger abstention.” 	[Doc. 58 at
2]; see also [Doc. 56 at 3]. 	But Judge Dominguez Braswell did consider the argument
that the Florida prosecution was brought in bad faith, and she determined that “Plaintiff
has failed to show the prosecution is being conducted in bad faith.” [Doc. 43 at 12]; see
also [Doc. 54 at 3]. Mr. Webb’s cursory assertion does not identify any purported error in
the magistrate judge’s analysis and does not preserve the objection for de novo review.
See Saleh v. Silco Oil Co., No. 19-cv-02973-PAB-NRN, 2020 WL 4915604, at *3 (D. Colo.
Aug. 20, 2020) (“In objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, plaintiffs must
raise specific arguments addressing purported errors in the recommendation.”); Jones v.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 10

8
United States, No. 22-cv-02854-PAB-MDB, 2024 WL 358098, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 31,
2024) (“[The] objection disputes only the correctness of the recommendation and does
not point to specific errors made by Judge Dominguez Braswell. 	[The] objection is
therefore insufficient.”). 	The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motions, his objections, and
the Recommendations and concurs with Judge Dominguez Braswell’s analysis.
Because 	Mr. 	Webb 	has 	not 	demonstrated 	any 	error 	in 	Judge 	Dominguez
Braswell’s Recommendations, his objections are respectfully OVERRULED and the
Recommendations are ADOPTED.4
Plaintiff’s Rule 72(a) Objection. Finally, Mr. Webb objects to Judge Dominguez
Braswell’s Minute Order denying his Motion for Limited Discovery. 	[Doc. 57]. 	Judge
Dominguez Braswell denied this Motion because “[m]ost, if not all, of the requests made
by Plaintiff have the same Younger abstention issues as the Court addressed in [the
November 26 Recommendation]” and “to the extent any request is not implicated by
Younger, it is premature as discovery has not yet opened in this matter.” [Doc. 61].
Mr. Webb objects to this ruling. 	He first argues that Younger abstention is
inapplicable to this case because (1) he is out on bond and (2) “there are no active or
open cases in state court involving Pueblo County or its officials.” [Doc. 62 at 1]. For the
reasons discussed above, this argument is unpersuasive and fails to show that Younger
is inapplicable to this case. As for Judge Dominguez Braswell’s statement that the Motion
for Limited Discovery was premature, Mr. Webb argues that his Motion was filed pursuant
4 Plaintiff’s other arguments challenge substantive aspects of the state proceedings, such
as the jurisdiction of the Florida court or the existence of probable cause supporting his
charges. [Doc. 58 at 2–3]. Because the Court finds Younger abstention appropriate and
necessary, the Court cannot consider those arguments.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 10

9
to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “which permits early discovery upon
a showing of good cause,” and asserts that he “has demonstrated such cause, given the
need to preserve evidence, prevent spoliation, and obtain critical information central to
resolving the jurisdictional and constitutional issues in this case.” [Id. at 2].
Under Rule 26(d), formal discovery generally will not commence until after the
parties have conferred under Rule 26(f), unless authorized by Court order. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(d). “In this district, courts permit such expedited discovery upon a showing of good
cause.” 	SEBO Am., LLC v. Does, No. 21-cv-02865-RM-STV, 2021 WL 5167196, at *1
(D. Colo. Oct. 29, 2021). 	However, “a plaintiff does not get discovery until he alleges a
plausible claim.” Dechant v. Grayson, No. 2:20-cv-02183-HLT, 2021 WL 63280, at *2 n.3
(D. Kan. Jan. 7, 2021); cf. Scherbarth v. Woods, No. 16-cv-02391-KHR, 2018 WL 851344,
at *7 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018) (“Plaintiff cannot issue discovery to determine whether he
could add a claim.”). 	Given the Younger abstention issue central to this case and the
pending motions to dismiss, see [Doc. 67; Doc. 74], Judge Dominguez Braswell was well
within her discretion to deny Plaintiff early discovery in this case. Mr. Webb has not shown
that Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Minute Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and his objection is respectfully OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) 	Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. 58] is
OVERRULED;
(2) 	The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 43] is
ADOPTED;
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 10

10
(3) 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Extradition [Doc. 6] is DENIED;
(4) 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Florida Warrant [Doc. 7] is DENIED;
(5) 	Plaintiff’s Notice of Unwarranted Bond Revocation and DA’s Motion for Non-
Testimonial Identification Procedure [Doc. 25] is DENIED;
(6) 	The Request for Emergency Stay Due to Immediate Extradition to Florida
[Doc. 36] is DENIED;
(7) 	The Request for Emergency Stay Due to Immediate Extradition to Florida
[Doc. 37] is DENIED;
(8) 	Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, Request for
Review of Motion for Discovery, and Notice that the Younger Abstention
Doctrine Does Not Require This Court to Abstain [Doc. 56] is OVERRULED;
(9) 	The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 54] is
ADOPTED;
(10) 	The Motion to Quash Governor’s Warrant [Doc. 45] is DENIED; and
(11) 	Plaintiff’s Objection to Minute Order [57] Denying Motion for Limited
Discovery and Request for Review by District Judge Pursuant to Rule 72(a)
is OVERRULED.
DATED: April 21, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-02705-NYW-MDB Document 76 filed 04/21/25 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 10