Wrany et al v. El Paso County, Colorado et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Civil Action No. 25–cv–03248–DDD–MDB
AMY WRANY, and
ASHLEY JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, by and through its Board of Commissioners,
EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
OFFICE OF THE CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE, in his or her
official capacity,
JESSICA DRIVER,
CODY CHRISTIAN,
KEVIN MAJOR, and
LESHA DELANEY,
Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge, Maritza Dominguez Braswell
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave to Effect Alternate
Service by Email (Defendant Cody Christian Only)” (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiffs ask for
permission to attempt substituted service on Defendant Cody Christian via email, pursuant to
Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). Upon careful review, the Court ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED
without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Amy Wrany and Ashley Johnson (“Plaintiffs”), initiated this action on October
15, 2025, for alleged civil rights violations in connection with child welfare proceedings in El
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 40 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
Paso County, Colorado. (See generally Doc. No. 10.) Defendant Christian is the current
Guardian Ad Litem in the child welfare case. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiffs allege that they made good faith efforts to serve Defendant Christian at her
known workplace address, via email, and via sheriff service. (Doc. No. 27.) None of the
foregoing service attempts were successful. (Id.) To support these allegations, the Motion
includes an affidavit by Plaintiff Wrany describing her attempts to serve Defendant Christian and
her understanding of the sheriff’s attempts at service. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs now request
permission to serve Defendant Christian via email and certified mail.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides that a plaintiff may serve process on an
individual located within the United States by either: (1) “delivering a copy of the summons and
of the complaint to the individual personally;” (2) “leaving a copy of each at the individual's
dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there;”
or (3) “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Alternatively, service of such an individual may be
accomplished by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of
general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
In Colorado, personal service is the default method of service, which includes leaving the
complaint and summons at the defendant’s normal place of abode with a family member over 18
years of age, or at the defendant’s workplace with their “supervisor, secretary, administrative
assistant, bookkeeper, human resources representative or managing agent.” Colo. R. Civ. P.
4(e)(1). Where service by mail or publication is not otherwise authorized pursuant to Colo. R.
Civ. P. 4(g), a party “may file a motion, supported by an affidavit of the person attempting
service, for an order for substituted service.” Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f). The motion must set forth (1)
the efforts made to obtain personal service and the reason why personal service could not be
obtained; (2) the identity of the person to whom the party wishes to deliver the process; and (3)
the address, or the last known address of the workplace and residence, if known, of the party
upon whom service is to be effectuated. (Id.)
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 40 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
If the motion satisfies these requirements, and if the court determines that due diligence
has been used to attempt personal service, that further attempts at personal service would be
futile, and that the person to whom the party seeks to deliver service is “appropriate under the
circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party upon whom service is
to be effectuated,” the court must then (1) authorize delivery to be made to the person deemed
appropriate for service; and (2) order that process be “mailed to the address(es) of the party to be
served by substituted service, as set forth in the motion.” (Id.)
The Motion does not meet Rule 4(f)’s requirements because it does not include an
affidavit by “the person attempting service.” Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(f) (emphasis added). An affidavit
by a party is insufficient, because neither state nor federal rules permit parties to a case to
attempt personal service. Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). The record suggests that
personal service was attempted only by sheriff’s deputies, but Plaintiffs did not include a
sheriff’s affidavit in the Motion. (Doc. No. 27 at 3-4.) For these reasons, the Motion does not
meet the requirements set forth in Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave to Effect Alternate Service by Email (Defendant
Cody Christian Only)” (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED without prejudice.
It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall effectuate service of the Summons and operative Complaint on
Defendant Cody Christian by the means required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Plaintiffs shall
provide proof of such service to the Court on or before January 30, 2026.
This Order shall be mailed to:
Amy Wrany
2529 Windsor Road
Ponca City, OK 74601
Ashley Johnson
1007 South 9th Street
Ponca City, OK 74601
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 40 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
Dated this 30th of December, 2025,
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
Maritza Dominguez Braswell
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03248-DDD-MDB Document 40 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4