Weidner v. Doe

── Weidner v. Doe ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 10, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1101 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GARY WEIDNER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-1101 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00339-NYW-SBP) JANE DOE, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellee, and KRISTIN AMES, in her individual capacity, Defendant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Gary Weidner, III, appeals from the district court’s award of attorney’s fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201 to defendant Jane Doe in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Colorado law. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-1101 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 Page: 2 BACKGROUND Doe accused Weidner of sexual assault, and Colorado brought criminal charges against him. See Weidner v. Doe, No. 24-1145, 2025 WL 1230531, at *1-2 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025). But then the state dismissed the charges mid-trial. See id. at *2. Weidner subsequently brought three § 1983 claims and five Colorado-law claims against Doe and an officer involved in the prosecution. See id. at *2. The district court dismissed all the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we affirmed. See id. at *1. After the district court dismissed Weidner’s claims, Doe filed a motion for attorney’s fees and a separate proposed bill of costs. The district court directed her to file supporting documents for the fee motion. Then the district court’s clerk declined to award costs because final judgment had not yet entered. After the entry of final judgment in her favor, Doe filed another proposed bill of costs, and the clerk entered an award of costs. Weidner did not respond to the fee motion, although the motion was pending for many months. The district court eventually granted the motion in part and awarded Doe fees under § 13-17-201, which provides that a “defendant shall have judgment for his reasonable attorney fees in defending” a tort action that “is dismissed on motion of the defendant prior to trial under rule 12(b) of the Colorado rules of civil procedure.” 1 § 13-17-201(1). 1 Although § 13-17-201(1) speaks to Colorado’s Rule 12(b), we have applied it to dismissals of pendent state-law tort claims under federal Rule 12(b)(6). See Jones 2  Appellate Case: 25-1101