26 CO 37, 25SA256 Gottorff, David v. Coleman, Bryan

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

The opinion summaries are not part of the Colorado Supreme
Court's opinion. They have been prepared solely for the reader's
convenience. As such, they may not be cited or relied upon. If
there is any discrepancy between the language in the summary
and the opinion, the language in the opinion controls.

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
June 1, 2026

# 2026 CO 37

Nos. 24SA315, 25SA256, Gottorff v. Exec. Dir .- Habeas Corpus-Filing Fee
Waiver-Inmate Lawsuits.

In this combined opinion, the supreme court reviews two district courts'
orders, denying petitioner's petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering him
to pay the filing fees associated with each petition. The court concludes that the
habeas courts properly denied the petitions because petitioner raised arguments
that prior courts have already reviewed and ruled on or that are more
appropriately resolved in petitioner's pending direct appeal. Therefore, the
supreme court affirms the habeas courts' denials of petitioner's petitions for
habeas relief. However, the supreme court also concludes that the habeas courts
erred by determining that, under section 13-17.5-103(1), C.R.S. (2025), because the
petitions were groundless, petitioner wasn't eligible for waivers of the filing fees.
Section 13-17.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2025), expressly excludes "an action for habeas
corpus" from the provision prohibiting waivers for groundless petitions.

<!-- PageBreak -->

Therefore, the supreme court vacates the fee-payment related portions of the
habeas courts' orders.

<!-- PageBreak -->

# The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue . Denver, Colorado 80203

2026 CO 37

Supreme Court Case No. 24SA315
Appeal from the District Court
Chaffee County District Court Case No. 24CV9
Honorable Patrick W. Murphy, Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant:
David J. Gottorff,

V.

Defendants-Appellees:
Jason Lengerich and Moses Stancil.

Order Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part
en banc
June 1, 2026

Supreme Court Case No. 25SA256
Appeal from the District Court
Chaffee County District Court Case No. 25CV7
Honorable Dayna Vise, Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant:
David J. Gottorff,

V.

Defendants-Appellees:

<!-- PageBreak -->

Bryan Coleman, Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and Moses
Stancil, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections.

Order Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part
en banc
June 1, 2026

Plaintiff-Appellant David J. Gottorff, pro se
Buena Vista, Colorado

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees:
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General
Christopher B. Synsvoll, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado

<!-- PageFooter="PER CURIAM." -->

<!-- PageBreak -->

PER CURIAM.

11 David J. Gottorff, an inmate in the Colorado Department of Corrections
("CDOC"), seeks review of two district courts' orders, denying his petitions for a
writ of habeas corpus and ordering him to pay the filing fees associated with each
petition. Because the orders address the same grounds for habeas relief and
contain identical payment orders, we address them together. Gottorff's petitions
raised arguments that prior courts have already reviewed and ruled on or that are
more appropriately resolved in his pending direct appeal. Therefore, we affirm
the habeas courts' denials of Gottorff's petitions for habeas relief. But because we
also conclude that the habeas courts erred by concluding that Gottorff wasn't
eligible for waivers of the filing fees, we vacate the fee-payment related portions
of the habeas courts' orders.

## I. Facts and Procedural History

T2
In October 2022, Gottorff was acquitted of one count of stalking and one
count of criminal mischief in case number 22CR4 in Ouray County District Court
for incidents involving his neighbors between April 2021 and April 2022. In July
2023, Gottorff was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public
servant, one count of menacing, and one count of stalking in case number 22CR8
in Ouray County District Court for incidents involving several public servants

<!-- PageBreak -->

between October 2022 and January 2023. The court sentenced him to an eight-year
prison term for these convictions.

13 Gottorff appealed his convictions and sentences to the court of appeals.1 See
Appellant's Notice of Appeal, People v. Gottorff, No. 23CA1857 (Colo. App. Oct. 30,
2023). While his appeal was pending, Gottorff filed numerous postconviction
motions with the sentencing court, seeking to have his convictions and sentences
vacated and to be released from custody. In these motions, Gottorff alleged that
his trial, conviction, and confinement violated various criminal statutes and were
barred by collateral estoppel, see § 18-1-302(1)(b), C.R.S. (2025), and by double
jeopardy, see § 18-1-301(1)(a), C.R.S. (2025). He also alleged that the sentencing
court improperly admitted certain CRE 404(b) evidence. The court denied these
motions as they arose, concluding that they either (1) were improper because
Gottorff was then represented by counsel and therefore couldn't file pro se
motions, (2) failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted, or (3) raised
issues related to those raised in his pending appeal.

14 Gottorff then filed a civil action, case number 24CV9, in Chaffee County
District Court (the "habeas court") against Jason Lengerich (who was the Warden
of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility at the time) and Moses Stancil (who is the

1 As of the date of this opinion, the court of appeals case is still pending, awaiting
final briefing.

<!-- PageBreak -->

Executive Director of CDOC), alleging illegal confinement and seeking relief
under a writ of habeas corpus. See § 13-45-101, C.R.S. (2025). He again asserted
that his prosecution in case number 22CR8 was barred by collateral estoppel and
double jeopardy, based on his acquittal in case number 22CR4, and he repeated
arguments related to the sentencing court's admission of improper CRE 404(b)
evidence. Gottorff also requested that he be allowed to file without paying the
filing fees required by section 13-17.5-103, C.R.S. (2025).

15 The habeas court found that Gottorff's petition relied "on identical factual
and legal grounds" as his postconviction motions, including his motion to set aside
judgment, which the sentencing court had previously denied. Gottorff v. Exec. Dir.
of Colo. Dep't of Corr. & Warden of Buena Vista Corr. Facility, No. 24CV9, at 2 (Dist.
Ct., Chaffee Cnty., Oct. 21, 2024) (unpublished order) ("2024 habeas order"). The
habeas court also noted that Gottorff's petition sought relief on grounds that were
available in his pending appeal and therefore better suited for resolution by the
court of appeals. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the habeas court denied the petition
because it was successive, groundless, and failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. Id. at 2-3.

16 The habeas court also concluded that Gottorff wasn't eligible for a waiver of
the filing fee and ordered him to pay $235 within twenty-eight days of the order.
Id. at 3. The court further ordered that if Gottorff failed to pay the fee within that

<!-- PageBreak -->

time, it should be collected in monthly installments from his inmate account as
provided by section 13-17.5-103(2)(b). 2024 habeas order, at 3. Gottorff then
appealed this order directly to us in case number 24SA315. See § 13-4-102(1)(e),
C.R.S. (2025) (excluding writs of habeas corpus from the court of appeals'
jurisdiction).

17 While awaiting our decision, Gottorff filed a second petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, case number 25CV7, raising the same collateral estoppel, double
jeopardy, and CRE 404(b) grounds set forth in his first habeas petition.2 He also
challenged the first habeas court's order regarding filing fees. The second habeas
court denied the petition, for the same reasons the first habeas court denied
Gottorff's first petition, and ordered him to pay the $235 filing fee within twenty-
eight days or be subject to garnishment, as before, per section 13-17.5-103(2)(b).
Gottorff v. Exec. Dir. of Colo. Dep't of Corr. & Warden of Buena Vista Corr. Facility, No.
25CV7, at 2-4 (Dist. Ct., Chaffee Cnty., Aug. 8, 2025) (unpublished order). Gottorff
appealed directly to us for review of this order in case number 25SA256.

2 The defendants in this second habeas petition are Bryan Coleman, who replaced
Lengerich as Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and Stancil.

<!-- PageBreak -->

## II. Analysis

18
Because the issues raised in both habeas petitions are the same, and because
our resolution of the filing fee issue will apply equally to both orders, we discuss
the two habeas courts' orders together.

### A. Denial of Habeas Petitions

19 By constitution and statute, all those imprisoned for criminal matters in
Colorado may "apply to the . .. district courts for a writ of habeas corpus."
§ 13-45-101(1); accord Colo. Const. art. II, § 21; see also Jones v. Williams, 2019 CO 61,
1 9, 443 P.3d 56, 59. "A habeas corpus proceeding is a civil action, the essential
purpose of which is to determine whether a person is unlawfully detained."
Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375, 377 (Colo. 1994). Such relief should be granted only
"when no other form of relief is available." Id. Accordingly, there are limits on
such petitions. And "[w]e have repeatedly declared that the writ of habeas corpus
may not be used as a substitute for an appeal and that a hearing on a writ of habeas
corpus may not be used as a basis for reviewing issues resolved by another court."
Ryan v. Cronin, 553 P.2d 754, 755 (Colo. 1976).

110 Here, as the habeas courts explained, Gottorff's petitions raised arguments
that prior courts have already reviewed and ruled on or that are more
appropriately resolved in his pending direct appeal. Therefore, we affirm the
habeas courts' denials of Gottorff's petitions for habeas relief.

<!-- PageBreak -->

## B. Filing Fees

111 The habeas courts determined that Gottorff wasn't eligible for waivers of
the filing fees based on their findings that his petitions were groundless. We
conclude, and defendants concede, that this was error.

112 Section 13-17.5-103(1) provides that a court should deny an inmate's motion
"to proceed in any civil action without prepayment of fees . . . if the action on its
face is frivolous, groundless, or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted." As the term is used in article 17.5, a "'civil action' does not
include ... an action for habeas corpus." § 13-17.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2025).

113 Therefore, Gottorff's habeas actions weren't subject to section 13-17.5-103's
limitations, and the habeas courts erred by ordering him to pay those fees. See
§ 13-17.5-103(3) ("In no event shall an inmate be prohibited from filing a civil
action ... because the inmate has no assets and no means by which to pay [the
fees]."). We thus vacate the fee-payment related portions of the habeas courts'
orders.

## III. Conclusion

114 We affirm in part and vacate in part the habeas courts' orders.