Martinez v. City of Aurora, Colorado

── Martinez v. City of Aurora, Colorado ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1142 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH April 27, 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ WYOMA MARTINEZ, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-1142 CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipality, Defendant - Appellant, and DOUGLAS HARROUN, individually, Defendant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01241-CNS-SBP) _________________________________ Hollie R. Birkholz (Julia A. Bannon, with her on the briefs), Office of the Aurora City Attorney, Aurora, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant. Zachary D. Warren, Highlands Law Firm, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff- Appellee. _________________________________ Before McHUGH, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge.  Appellate Case: 25-1142 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 2 _________________________________ Plaintiff-Appellee Wyoma Martinez was attacked by Defendant Douglas Harroun (Officer Harroun), a City of Aurora police officer. When the attack occurred, Officer Harroun was on administrative leave. Ms. Martinez filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Harroun and his employer Defendant-Appellant City of Aurora, Colorado (Aurora). Aurora moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint failed to plausibly allege § 1983’s state-action requirement. The district court denied Aurora’s motion to dismiss and its motion to reconsider the denial. We then granted Aurora’s petition to hear this interlocutory appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we reverse the denial of the motion to reconsider and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I A1 On December 31, 2022, Douglas Harroun, an officer with the Aurora Police Department, shot and severely injured an individual while on duty. 1 The facts in this opinion come from Ms. Martinez’s operative Second Amended Complaint (the complaint). “At the motion-to-dismiss stage, [w]e must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in a complaint and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Cressman 2  Appellate Case: 25-1142 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 3 The next day, Aurora’s chief of police placed Officer Harroun on administrative leave (Leave Order). 2 The Leave Order stated, in relevant part, “You are being placed on administrative leave. You will not take any action as a sworn police officer, nor are you allowed to work any secondary employment or wear your police uniform.” 3 RI.125. Officer Harroun signed the Leave Order. A little over a week later, Officer Harroun was involved in another violent incident. On the evening of January 11, 2023, Officer Harroun and v. Thompson, 719 F.3d 1139, 1141 (10th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2