From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norby v. Charnes

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II
Oct 20, 1988
764 P.2d 407 (Colo. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 87CA0566

Decided October 20, 1988.

Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County Honorable Henry E. Nieto, Judge

Gregory Dallas, P. C., Vincent C. Todd, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Duane Woodard, Attorney General, Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard H. Forman, Solicitor General, David M. Kaye, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendants-Appellees.


Plaintiff, David A. Norby, appeals from the district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as improperly joined with his claim for judicial review of the Department of Revenue's order revoking his driver's license. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

After an administrative hearing, the Department of Revenue ordered the revocation of plaintiff's driver's license for a period of one year. Plaintiff challenged this order by filing a complaint in the district court wherein he sought judicial review pursuant to § 42-2-122.1(9), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17), injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and a stay of execution on the order of revocation.

Thereafter, the district court, pursuant to the motion of the Department, dismissed plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 upon the sole basis that such claims were not properly joined with a claim for judicial review brought under § 42-2-122.1, C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 17). The court's ruling did not purport in any manner to adjudicate the merits of the dismissed claims. Plaintiff, however, instead of instituting a separate suit to assert his claims under the United States Code waited until the court, by subsequent order, reinstated his driving privileges and then instituted the within review.

The dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is generally not a final and appealable order, unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the action could not be saved and that further proceedings were precluded as a result of the order of court. Schoenwald v. Schoen, 132 Colo. 142, 286 P.2d 341 (1955); Wilbourn v. Hagan, 716 P.2d 485 (Colo.App. 1986); cf. B.C. Investment Co. v. Throm, 650 P.2d 1333 (Colo.App. 1982).

Here, there was nothing barring plaintiff from simply refiling by a separate proceeding his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim following the district court's order of dismissal. Accordingly, the order dismissing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as being improperly joined was not a final judgment for purposes of appeal and this appeal must therefore be dismissed. See C.A.R. 1(a)(1).

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final judgment.

JUDGE SMITH and JUDGE BABCOCK concur.


Summaries of

Norby v. Charnes

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II
Oct 20, 1988
764 P.2d 407 (Colo. App. 1988)
Case details for

Norby v. Charnes

Case Details

Full title:David A. Norby, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan N. Charnes, as Executive…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II

Date published: Oct 20, 1988

Citations

764 P.2d 407 (Colo. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Suthers v. CB Services Corp.

This argument has no bearing on whether there is a final judgment on this issue, because the imposition of a…

FSDW, LLC v. First National Bank

And Colorado courts generally hold that, to be appealable, a district court's order must preclude further…