The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of December 13, 2021

On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondents relief from the prior adjudiciation and dispositional orders.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 9, 2022.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of May 1, 2022.

On May 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2022.  The petitioner has 5 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of June 5, 2021, and September 29, 2021.

On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) finding that the defendant had waived attorney-client privilege, and (2) ordering the Public Defender’s Office to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 19, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 29, 2021.

On November 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to make either a pretrial disclosure or an offer of proof regarding her planned alternate suspect defense.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 20, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 2, 2021, and August 30, 2021.

On September 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner does not qualify for representation by the Public Defender.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 20, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the magistrate’s order of December 15, 2021.

On December 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in partially denying the petitioner’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2022.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of July 21, 2021, and July 23, 2021.

On September 28, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of her mental condition.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 26, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of August 2, 2021.

On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate’s order denying the petitioner’s emergency motion to enroll his children in school.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 28, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of March 11, 2021, and April 30, 2021.

On May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss his felony DUI charge on retrial.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of August 4, 2020.

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding as a matter of law that a lien purchaser is not a collateral source under section 13-21-111.6, C.R.S.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 31, 2021.  The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of May 7, 2021, and August 24, 2021.

On September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in staying the petitioner’s condemnation proceeding.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 25, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of November 5, 2021, and November 12, 2021.

On November 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to (1) upload unredacted mental health records into the court’s e-filing system under seal, and (2) disclose certain redacted mental health records to the defendant.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 21, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

On September 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting immediate possession of real property to the respondent and consolidated this case with Supreme Court Case No. 21SA269.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 15, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.  Briefs are to be filed into Case No. 21SA276.  No additional documents may be filed into 21SA269.

The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of December 16, 2020.

On January 4, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 1, 2021.  The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 8, 2021.

On May 7, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the respondent should not be enjoined from seeking any affirmative relief while appearing pro se in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021.  The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 9, 2021.

On March 12, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in calculating the respondent’s speedy trial deadline such that the new trial date falls beyond the deadline.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 9, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 9, 2020.

On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to provide records in response to a subpoena duces tecum.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 12, 2021.

 On May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering the minor child to receive all medically recommended and routine childhood vaccinations pursuant to the schedule recommended by her pediatrician.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021.  The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 21, 2020.

On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the charges for violating his right to be free from double jeopardy.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 8, 2020.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s orders of January 20, 2021, and January 25, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause, directing Respondents to answer why (1) the term “theft,” as that term is used in section 18-4-405, C.R.S. (2020), encompasses the theft of medical records or medical information under section 18-4-412(1), C.R.S. (2020), such that Respondents have standing to pursue their civil theft counterclaim in this case; and (2) Respondents’ civil theft counterclaim is not barred by section 18-4-412(5).  Respondents are directed to file their written answer on or before April 13, 2021.  Petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.