Laserfiche WebLink
therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against the Division upon which relief can <br />be granted. C.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The Complaint must be dismissed for this reason alone. <br />III. Plaintiffs Claim Does Not Fall Within a Waived Area of the Colorado <br />Governmental Immunity Act and Therefore Immunity Must Lie in Favor of <br />Defendant <br />To the extent that Plaintiff's complaint purports to state a tort claim, the claim does not <br />fall within an area in which immunity has been waived under the Colorado Governmental <br />Immunity Act ("CGIA"). Consequently, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction <br />over this case. <br />The CGIA prohibits suit against state entities and state employees that lie, or could lie, in <br />tort, except in a limited set of circumstances. The exceptions set out in section 24-10-106(1), <br />C.R.S. (2004), define the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to hear claims against public <br />entities and public employees. Fogg, 892 P.2d at 276; State Department of Highways v. <br />Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, 869 P.2d 1289, 1291 (Colo. 1991). <br />Pursuant to the CGIA, sovereign immunity is only waived by a public employee in <br />actions for injuries resulting from (a) the operation of a motor vehicle, owned or leased by the <br />public entity; (b) the operation of any public hospital, correctional facility or jail; (c) a dangerous <br />condition of any public building; (d) a dangerous condition of a public highway, road or street; <br />(e) a dangerous condition of any public facility located in any park or recreation area maintained <br />by a public entity; or (f) the operation and maintenance of any public water facility. §24-10- <br />106(1), C.R.S. (2002). <br />Plaintiff's Complaint does not explicitly set forth a theory of tort liability as the basis of <br />his claim, but rather, it simply states the actions of the Defendants violated "Federal and State <br />5