Eaves v. CDOC

── Eaves v. CDOC ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 25CA1002 Eaves v CDOC 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA1002 Logan County District Court No. 24CV12 Honorable Dina M. Christiansen, Judge Rodney Douglas Eaves, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections and Warden of Sterling Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE LUM J. Jones and Meirink, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Rodney Douglas Eaves, Pro Se Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Rebekah Ryan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees ¶1 Plaintiff, Rodney Douglas Eaves, is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). He appeals the district court’s judgment affirming a prison disciplinary conviction entered against him. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Eaves was walking with a group of inmates to the prison cafeteria wearing at least one eagle feather. A corrections officer, Captain Rodriguez, stopped him and asked him about the feather. Eaves approached the officer and told him that he should “read the policy.” After briefly going to his cell, Eaves returned to Captain Rodriguez and yelled in his face about the feather and the policy. Captain Rodriguez then ordered other officers to restrain Eaves, which they did. Eaves’s behavior caused at least one other inmate to begin yelling at corrections staff during this interaction. ¶3 Eaves was charged with “Advocating or Creating Facility Disruption,” a violation of the Code of Penal Discipline (COPD). DOC Admin. Reg. 150-01(IV)(E)(14). After a hearing at which Eaves, Captain Rodriguez, and other witnesses testified, the hearing officer found Eaves guilty of the charged violation. That decision was upheld on administrative review. 1 ¶4 Eaves then filed this action in district court under C.R.C.P. 106.5, arguing that he is entitled to relief from the conviction for various reasons. The district court rejected his arguments and upheld the conviction. ¶5 Eaves appeals. He argues that the hearing officer misapplied the law in numerous ways, including ways that violated his right to due process. We conclude that none of his arguments warrant relief.1 II. Governing Standards ¶6 When reviewing a C.R.C.P. 106.5 action attacking a prison disciplinary conviction, we sit in the same position as the district court and review its ruling de novo. See Dawson v. Exec. Dir. of Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 2014 COA 69, ¶ 6. Our review is limited to determining whether there was an abuse of discretion or a proceeding in excess of jurisdiction. Garcia v. Harms, 2014 COA 154, ¶ 9. 1 We also deny Eaves’s request, raised in his reply brief, to strike the DOC’s brief for noncompliance with C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(A). 2 ¶7 Hearing officers abuse their discretion if they misinterpret or misapply the law. Dawson, ¶ 7. But we must affirm a disciplinary conviction if there is some evidence in the record to support it. Id. ¶8 Even if there was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse unless that abuse of discretion prejudiced the inmate. See Alward v. Golder, 148 P.3d 424, 430 (Colo. App. 2006). It is the inmate’s burden to establish both an abuse of discretion and prejudice. Id. Although we liberally construe a pro se party’s arguments, we cannot invent arguments the party has not made. People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20, ¶ 34. Pro se parties like Eaves are ultimately subject to the same rules as represented parties. See Adams v. Sagee, 2017 COA 133, ¶ 10. III. Hearing Officer