Background
Wendel R. Wardell, Jr. received a five-day lockdown sanction at the Larimer County Detention Facility after refusing staff instructions to move housing. At a requested disciplinary hearing, Corporal Matthew Yarberry reviewed the incident report, body-camera footage, and Wardell’s written statement, and upheld the disciplinary conviction.
After serving the sanction and being released on a personal recognizance bond, Wardell sought C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review. He alleged that jail officials violated jail regulations and his due-process rights by denying him an opportunity to present witnesses or documentary evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient. He requested expungement of the disciplinary record. The district court dismissed, alternatively finding the claim moot and inadequately pleaded.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Rule 106 did not prevent the defendants from using a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction before the Rule 106 briefing procedures were completed.
The court also affirmed because Wardell did not challenge the district court’s mootness ruling in his opening brief. Independently, the court agreed the case was moot: the available Rule 106 remedy would have been reversal and a remand for a new disciplinary hearing, not expungement, and a new hearing would have no practical effect after Wardell served the sanction and was released. Possible effects on future jail classification were too speculative to constitute collateral consequences.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may test jurisdiction over a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) complaint.
- An appellant who fails to challenge an alternative ground for dismissal in the opening brief risks affirmance on that ground.
- Completed jail discipline is moot when a new hearing would provide no practical relief and alleged future consequences are speculative.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 106 review is limited to relief the rule authorizes. A court may remand for a new hearing after finding an abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction, but it may not use Rule 106 review to expunge a disciplinary conviction.
For challenges to completed detention-facility sanctions, litigants must identify concrete continuing consequences and preserve mootness arguments in their opening appellate briefs.