Background
Adam J. Salter, representing himself, filed a complaint in Denver District Court in March 2025 naming the State of Colorado as the sole defendant. His sweeping allegations accused the State of sheltering his former employer, Discover CBD, from liability by withholding information, making false statements, and abusing legal procedures. He also claimed the State had entrapped him in illegal business practices involving cannabis, hemp, unapproved drugs, and the national opioid crisis.
Salter pleaded seven claims for relief: (1) discrimination as a self-represented litigant under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA); (2) attempt to influence a public servant under § 18-8-306; (3) medical and disability discrimination under CADA; (4) unsafe and illegal business practices under the Colorado Food and Drug Act; (5) workplace retaliation under the Whistleblower Act; (6) official misconduct under § 18-8-401; and (7) medical malpractice under the Health Care Availability Act.
The State moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), arguing that all allegations were conclusory and that the complaint contained no supporting facts showing the State violated any law. The district court, Judge Heidi L. Kutcher presiding, granted the motion and dismissed all seven claims. Salter appealed pro se.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in its entirety. Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(5) ruling de novo, the court held that Salter’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts that, if taken as true, would establish plausible grounds for relief on any of his claims. The court rejected Salter’s central appellate argument — that his status as a pro se litigant constitutes a protected class under § 24-34-601(2)(a) of CADA — finding that the statute’s enumerated protected characteristics (disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry) do not include pro se status, and that Salter cited no authority to the contrary.
The court also found that Salter’s remaining appellate arguments were conclusory. He failed to identify any materially false information the district court had relied upon, any specific disclosures that gave the State an unfair advantage, or any claims the Attorney General’s Office had concealed. As to his contention that Rule 12 was used “obstructively” to deny him access to discovery and a merits determination, the court held that a complaint must allege sufficient facts before a plaintiff is entitled to proceed to discovery.
Six of the seven claims were separately deemed abandoned on appeal because Salter made no argument concerning them in his opening brief. Only the discrimination-as-pro-se-litigant claim was substantively addressed on appeal; the court affirmed dismissal of the remaining six on abandonment grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigant status does not constitute a protected class under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, § 24-34-601(2)(a); the statute’s enumerated categories are exclusive and do not encompass litigation status or financial inability to hire counsel.
- Pro se parties are held to the same procedural and pleading standards as licensed attorneys; a court may liberally construe pro se filings but is not required to invent arguments or supply missing factual allegations on a party’s behalf.
- Claims raised at the trial court level but not argued in an appellate brief are deemed abandoned, even for pro se appellants — underscoring the importance of addressing all preserved issues on appeal.
- A conclusory complaint that recites legal elements without supporting facts will not survive a Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, and the filing of such a complaint does not entitle the plaintiff to proceed to discovery.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion reinforces Colorado’s pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs seeking relief against state entities. It makes clear that neither a plaintiff’s unrepresented status nor broad, generalized accusations of government favoritism can substitute for the factual specificity required to state a plausible claim for relief. Courts will not rescue a deficient complaint by searching the record or crafting arguments the plaintiff failed to articulate.
The decision also serves as a practical reminder that appellate abandonment rules apply with full force to self-represented litigants. A pro se appellant who fails to brief a claim on appeal forfeits it, regardless of how the claim was pleaded below — a trap that can be particularly consequential when, as here, multiple claims are at stake and the appellant focuses only on a subset of them.