Rule 106.Forms of Writs Abolished

Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 10, 2026

In one sentenceRule 106 replaced the old writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and scire facias — with ordinary civil actions, and its best-known provision, 106(a)(4), lets a district court review whether a governmental or lower judicial body exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion when no other adequate remedy exists.

Full Text of Rule 106

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b)

(a) Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Certiorari, Prohibition, Scire Facias and Other Remedial Writs in the District Court. Special forms of pleadings and writs in habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, scire facias, and proceedings for the issuance of other remedial writs, as heretofore known, are hereby abolished in the district court. Any relief provided hereunder shall not be available in county courts. In the following cases relief may be obtained in the district court by appropriate action under the practice prescribed in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure:

(1) Where any person not being committed or detained for any criminal or supposed criminal matter is illegally confined or restrained of his liberty;

(2) Where the relief sought is to compel a lower judicial body, governmental body, corporation, board, officer or person to perform an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such lower judicial body, governmental body, corporation, board, officer, or person. The judgment shall include any damages sustained;

(3) When any person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any office or franchise, the district attorney of the proper district may and, when directed by the governor so to do, shall bring an action against such person in the name of the people of the state, but if the district attorney declines so to do, it may be brought upon the relation and complaint of any person. The Rule heretofore existing requiring leave of court to institute such proceedings is hereby abolished. When such an action is brought against a defendant alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or who allegedly unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military, or any franchise it shall be given precedence over other civil actions except similar actions previously commenced. The judgment may determine the rightful holder of the office or franchise;

(4) Where, in any civil matter, any governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law: (I) Review shall be limited to a determination of whether the body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer. (II) Review pursuant to this subsection (4) shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint. An answer or other responsive pleading shall then be filed in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (III) If the complaint is accompanied by a motion and proposed order requiring certification of a record, the court shall order the defendant body or officer to file with the clerk on a specified date, the record or such portion or transcript thereof as is identified in the order, together with a certificate of authenticity. The date for filing the record shall be after the date upon which an answer to the complaint must be filed. (IV) Within 21 days after the date of receipt of an order requiring certification of a record, a defendant may file with the clerk a statement designating portions of the record not set forth in the order which it desires to place before the court. The cost of preparing the record shall be advanced by the plaintiff, except that the court may, on objection by the plaintiff, order a defendant to advance payment for the costs of preparing such portion of the record designated by the defendant as the court shall determine is unessential to a complete understanding of the controversy; and upon a failure to comply with such order, the portions for which the defendant has been ordered to advance payment shall be omitted from the record. Any party may move to correct the record at any time. (V) The proceedings before or decision of the body or officer may be stayed, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (VI) Where claims other than claims under this Rule are properly joined in the action, the court shall determine the manner and timing of proceeding with respect to all claims. (VII) A defendant required to certify a record shall give written notice to all parties, simultaneously with filing, of the date of filing the record with the clerk. The plaintiff shall file, and serve on all parties, an opening brief within 42 days after the date on which the record was filed. If no record is requested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall file an opening brief within 42 days after the defendant has served its answer upon the plaintiff. The defendant may file and serve an answer brief within 35 days after service of the plaintiff's brief, and the plaintiff may file and serve a reply brief to the defendant's answer brief within 14 days after service of the answer brief. (VIII) The court may accelerate or continue any action which, in the discretion of the court, requires acceleration or continuance. (IX) In the event the court determines that the governmental body, officer or judicial body has failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of law necessary for a review of its action, the court may remand for the making of such findings of fact or conclusions of law.

(5) When judgment is recovered against one or more of several persons jointly indebted upon an obligation, and it is desired to proceed against the persons not originally served with the summons who did not appear in the action. Such persons may be cited to show cause why they should not be bound by the judgment in the same manner as though they had been originally served with the summons, and in his answer any such person may set up any defense either to the original obligation or which may have arisen subsequent to judgment, except a discharge from the original liability by the statute of limitations.

(b) Limitations as to Time. Where a statute provides for review of the acts of any governmental body or officer or judicial body by certiorari or other writ, or for a proceeding in quo warranto, relief therein provided may be had under this Rule. If no time within which review may be sought is provided by any statute, a complaint seeking review under subsection (a)(4) of this Rule shall be filed in the district court not later than 28 days after the final decision of the body or officer. A timely complaint may be amended at any time with leave of the court, for good cause shown, to add, dismiss or substitute parties, and such amendment shall relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint.

Amendment History

Amended effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 2012 August 17, 2020.

Plain-English Summary

Rule 106 did away with the old, separate writ pleadings and folded their relief into regular civil actions filed in district court — county courts cannot grant this kind of relief at all. The rule covers several distinct situations: illegal confinement of someone not held on a criminal charge, orders compelling a public body or officer to perform a duty the law requires, actions against a person who has unlawfully taken over a public office or franchise, and proceedings against people who were never served in a case where judgment was entered against others jointly liable with them.

The provision Colorado litigants use most is subsection 106(a)(4): review of a governmental body, officer, or lower judicial body that has exercised judicial or quasi-judicial power and, in doing so, exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, when the plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. That review looks only at the record already before the body being reviewed — it is not a new trial — and it starts with a complaint rather than a special writ. The body may be ordered to certify the administrative record to the court, the plaintiff generally advances the cost of preparing it, and either side can move to correct the record.

Once the record is filed, the case proceeds on a fixed briefing schedule: the plaintiff's opening brief, the defendant's answer brief, and the plaintiff's reply, each with its own deadline. Proceedings under review can be stayed while the case is pending, and if the reviewing court finds the body never made the findings needed to support its decision, the court can send the matter back for those findings. Absent a specific statutory deadline, a complaint seeking this kind of review must be filed within 28 days of the final decision being challenged.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does 106(a)(4) review cover?

The court's review is limited to whether the governmental body, officer, or lower judicial body exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, judged against the record that was before that body when it made its decision.

How long does someone have to file a 106(a)(4) complaint?

If no statute sets a different deadline, the complaint must be filed in district court no later than 28 days after the body's final decision.

What is the briefing schedule once the record is filed?

The plaintiff has 42 days after the record is filed (or after the defendant's answer, if no record was requested) to file an opening brief. The defendant then has 35 days to file an answer brief, and the plaintiff has 14 days after that to file a reply.

Can county courts grant relief under Rule 106?

No. The rule expressly makes this relief available only in district court.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (Colo. R. Civ. P. 106). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Colorado (C.R.S. § 13-2-108; Colo. Const. art. VI). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 10, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: 106(a)(4) reviewcertiorari review colorado district courtreview of governmental decision coloradoabuse of discretion review colorado courtmandamus colorado rule 106quasi-judicial decision judicial reviewquo warranto colorado procedure