“Per-Defendant” Fee-Shifting and Revived Rule 12(b) Defences after Amendment: A Commentary on West-Helmle v. Denver District Attorney’s Office (10th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In West-Helmle v. Denver District Attorney’s Office, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a consolidated, unpublished but citable Order and Judgment that addresses a potpourri of procedural and substantive questions: the scope of Colorado’s mandatory fee-shifting statute (§ 13-17-201), the continued vitality of Rule 12(b) motions after a complaint is amended, the strict contours of absolute judicial immunity, the standard for pleading disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and the threshold for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.

Although the opinion is “non-precedential” in the formal sense, it breaks new ground by expressly holding that Colorado’s fee-shifting statute applies on a per-defendant basis when all claims against a particular defendant are disposed of under Rule 12(b), even if litigation proceeds against other defendants. The Court’s analytical approach also clarifies that once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, previously answered defendants may assert fresh Rule 12(b) motions without offending Rule 12(b)’s timing clause.

2. Case Background

Parties. Plaintiff-appellant Ethan West-Helmle, a law student who suffered an ischemic stroke, sued multiple public and private defendants—Denver District Attorney’s Office (DDA), Denver County Judiciary (DCJ), the University of Denver (DU), various prosecutors, professors, and Magistrate Judge Melissa Trollinger Annis—alleging disability discrimination and state-law torts.
Procedural History.
- Second & Third Amended Complaints filed; bulk of claims dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Remaining claims resolved on summary judgment.
- Separate order awarded attorney’s fees (≈ $62,400) to Professor Thomas Russell under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201(1).
- Two appeals—No. 24-1340 (merits) and No. 25-1020 (fees/costs)—consolidated.
Key Issues on Appeal.
1. Whether various dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) were correct (ADA/Rehab Act, stigma-plus, civil conspiracy).
2. Whether the district court erred in denying leave to add a § 1983 claim against the magistrate judge (judicial immunity).
3. Whether the trial judge should have recused.
4. Whether Professor Russell was entitled to fees under § 13-17-201(1).

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court entirely (save for dismissing that portion of the fee appeal relating to DU’s as-yet-un-taxed bill of costs). Core holdings include:

The stigma-plus due-process claim failed: reputational harm plus lost prospective employment is insufficient; plaintiff pleaded no “change in legal status.”
ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims were properly dismissed for failure plausibly to plead a disability substantially limiting a major life activity.
Rule 12(b) motion practice was proper even after an answer to a prior complaint because amendment revives 12(b) defences.
The magistrate judge’s courtroom exclusion was a judicial act protected by absolute immunity; proposed amendment would be futile.
Recusal was unwarranted; plaintiff’s affidavits under § 144 were legally insufficient.
Section 13-17-201(1) authorizes fees where all claims against a particular defendant are dismissed under Rule 12(b), regardless of claims pending against others; fee award (reduced by half for excessiveness) upheld.

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Hinkle v. Beckham County, 962 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2020) – defined “stigma-plus” and major-life-activity tests, guiding rejection of due-process and ADA claims.
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) – cornerstone of judicial-immunity analysis; court deemed controlling.
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) – applied to recusal; adverse rulings rarely show bias.
Lewis v. City of Littleton, 855 F. App’x 448 (10th Cir. 2021) – distinguished to approve fee award; court reframed statute as “per-defendant.”
Combined Communications Corp. v. Finesilver, 672 F.2d 818 (10th Cir. 1982) – showed that judges control access to courtroom; supported immunity.

4.2 Legal Reasoning

Stigma-Plus. The Court required “significant alteration in legal status” (e.g., driver’s licence revocation, sex-offender registration). Mere damage to job prospects is “too intangible.” Plaintiff’s allegations of failing grade and bar licensure denial were (a) insufficiently pled and (b) not shown to be government-imposed.
Disability Pleading Standard. Following Edmonds-Radford v. Southwest Airlines, the Court demanded facts showing substantial limitation; medical records demonstrated only “mild” impairments; no major life activity identified.
Rule 12(b) after Amendment. Citing Wright & Miller § 1361, the panel confirmed that an amended complaint “revives” the right to file a 12(b) motion, answering a practical litigation question.
Absolute Judicial Immunity. Because managing courtroom access is a quintessential judicial function within jurisdiction, immunity remained absolute; discriminatory motive allegations are irrelevant (Forrester v. White).
Recusal. Affidavits under § 144 must be timely and fact-specific; conclusory claims or reliance on adverse rulings fail. The judge could decide sufficiency himself under Bray.
Fee-Shifting. The panel read § 13-17-201’s phrase “an action” to mean “all claims against a defendant.” It distinguished Lewis because in that case some claims against the same defendant survived dismissal (went to summary judgment), whereas here both claims against Russell were dismissed under Rule 12(b). This interpretive move is the decision’s most novel point.

4.3 Likely Impact

Colorado Fee Motions in Federal Court. Defendants can now confidently move for fees under § 13-17-201(1) when they alone are dismissed under Rule 12(b), even in multi-defendant suits. Expect a surge in early motions for fees and strategic severance of claims.
Pleading Strategies. Plaintiffs will need to allege a governmentally imposed status change for stigma-plus claims and provide concrete facts (not medical conclusions) to show ADA disability at the Rule 12 stage.
Amendments & Motions. Defense counsel can re-assert Rule 12(b) defences after each amended complaint, resetting procedural posture.
Judicial-Recusal Motions. The decision underscores the high bar for § 144 affidavits and the judiciary’s authority to pass on their own disqualification in the first instance.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Stigma-Plus: An extra layer required to transform reputational harm into a constitutional due-process violation. “Stigma” = defamatory statement by government; “Plus” = tangible alteration in legal status (e.g., loss of licence).
Qualified Individual with a Disability: Under the ADA/Rehab Act, a person who (a) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and (b) nonetheless meets the job or program requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Rule 12(b): Federal rule allowing certain defences (e.g., failure to state a claim) to be raised before answering the complaint. When a complaint is amended, the clock resets.
Absolute Judicial Immunity: Complete immunity from damages for acts taken in a judicial capacity within jurisdiction—regardless of alleged malice or error.
28 U.S.C. § 144 Affidavit: A litigant’s sworn statement alleging personal bias of the judge. Must be timely, fact-specific, and filed only once per case.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201(1): Colorado statute mandating an award of attorney’s fees to a defendant when a tort action is dismissed under Rule 12(b). The Tenth Circuit now interprets it to operate on a defendant-by-defendant basis.

6. Conclusion

West-Helmle is notable less for its ultimate outcome—affirmance in a sprawling pro se suit—than for the doctrinal clarifications it provides. Practitioners litigating Colorado tort claims in federal court must account for the Court’s “per-defendant” reading of § 13-17-201 and its reminder that Rule 12(b) protections revive with each amended pleading. Plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination or reputational due-process injuries must plead concrete, statutorily recognized impairments and governmental status changes. Finally, the opinion reinforces the formidable shields of judicial immunity and the rigorous standards governing judicial-bias accusations. Together, these points make West-Helmle a valuable procedural roadmap for civil rights litigators in the Tenth Circuit and beyond.