futility exception in Colorado

2026Under the futility exception, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies when “it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt’ that further administrative review by the agency would be futile because the agency will not provide the relief requested.” Golden’s Concrete, 962 P.2d at 923 (citation omitted). ¶ 14 We apply a mixed standard of review to the dismissal of a complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

2005Under the futility exception, exhaustion is not necessary when it is “ ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt’ that further administrative review by the agency would be futile because the agency will not provide the relief requested.” State v. Golden’s Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919, 923 (Colo.1998).

2014United Air Lines, 8 P.3d at 1213 . ¶ 23 Accordingly, we conclude that, because the futility exception does not apply, and because Counts One through Three of Liberty's counterclaims were not sufficiently *118 presented in the proof of claim, the district court correctly dismissed those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2012A. Futility Exception to Exhaustion 117 Under the futility exception, exhaustion is not necessary when it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that further administrative review by the ageney would be futile because the agency will not provide the relief requested." Crow, 169 P.3d at 165 (quoting City & Cnty. of Denver v. United Air Lines, Inc., 8 P.3d 1206, 1213 (Colo.2000); accord First Christian Assembly of God v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 122 P.3d 1089, 1093 (Colo.App.2005).

2026Firm, L.L.C., 2012 CO 61, ¶ 18 (“[I]ssues not raised in or decided by a lower court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.”). ¶ 11 Nevertheless, because the district court addressed the futility exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies, and because we broadly construe Jefferson’s arguments in the district court and on appeal, we will consider this issue.

2026Egle v. City & County of Denver, 93 P.3d 609, 611 (Colo. App. 2004).

2026See Jones v. Williams, 2019 CO 61, ¶ 5 (“Pleadings by pro se litigants must be broadly construed to ensure that they are not denied review of important issues because of their inability to articulate their argument like a lawyer.”).

2019See People v. 10 Null, 233 P.3d 670, 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null’s request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie, 101 P.3d 219, 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero, 657 P.2d 948, 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for hearin

2019See People v.Null , 233 P.3d 670 , 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding *419 to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null's request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie , 101 P.3d 219 , 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero , 657 P.2d 948 , 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for

2019See People v. 10 Null, 233 P.3d 670, 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null’s request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie, 101 P.3d 219, 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero, 657 P.2d 948, 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for hearin

2019See People v.Null , 233 P.3d 670 , 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding *419 to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null's request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie , 101 P.3d 219 , 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero , 657 P.2d 948 , 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for

2019See People v. 10 Null, 233 P.3d 670, 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null’s request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie, 101 P.3d 219, 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero, 657 P.2d 948, 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for hearin

2019See People v.Null , 233 P.3d 670 , 681 (Colo. 2010) (declining in an original proceeding *419 to order that the state be given another opportunity to attempt to prove extraordinary circumstances justifying failure to honor Null's request for blood test where the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the hearing on the matter); People v. Syrie , 101 P.3d 219 , 223 (Colo. 2004) (declining to consider on appeal newly raised argument against suppression, as to which trial court was never given a chance to rule); People v. Quintero , 657 P.2d 948 , 951 (Colo. 1983) (declining to remand for

2012A. Futility Exception to Exhaustion 117 Under the futility exception, exhaustion is not necessary when it is "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that further administrative review by the ageney would be futile because the agency will not provide the relief requested." Crow, 169 P.3d at 165 (quoting City & Cnty. of Denver v. United Air Lines, Inc., 8 P.3d 1206, 1213 (Colo.2000); accord First Christian Assembly of God v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 122 P.3d 1089, 1093 (Colo.App.2005).