Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons: CRC students currently represent Ahmad Ajaj, a prisoner confined to the United States Penitentiary – Administrative Maximum (ADX), the federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Ajaj is a devout Muslim, and his lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages for the substantial burdens placed on his religious practice by Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials. CRC students filed an amended complaint alleging that BOP officials violated Mr. Ajaj’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide him food and medications outside the fasting hours during religiously-required fasts, by failing to provide him halal meals, by failing to provide him access to an imam, and by forbidding him from engaging in group prayer. CRC students brought these claims under both the First Amendment free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Mr. Ajaj’s complaint also states claims for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. CRC students briefed three motions to dismiss filed by the government raising questions of qualified immunity, the availability of certain remedies for constitutional and statutory claims, and administrative exhaustion requirements. All of Mr. Ajaj’s claims for injunctive relief survived the motions to dismiss, and CRC students began discovery on these claims in December 2016. Discovery is ongoing.
Chapman v. BOP, et al.: CRC students currently represent Seifullah Chapman, a federal prisoner confined to the United States Penitentiary – Terre Haute in Terre Haute, Indiana (USP-Terre Haute). Mr. Chapman suffers from a severe form of Type 1 diabetes, and frequent fluctuations in Mr. Chapman’s blood sugar cause Mr. Chapman acute pain and, if ignored, could be fatal. In February 2015, when Mr. Chapman was confined at the United States Penitentiary – Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility in Florence, Colorado, a group of CRC students filed a federal lawsuit on his behalf, alleging that the BOP and certain individual defendants violated Mr. Chapman’s rights under the Eighth Amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabiliation Act. Throughout 2015, after consulting with a diabetes expert who became gravely concerned about Mr. Chapman’s repeated low blood sugar levels, teams of CRC students twice moved for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order to obtain immediate relief for Mr. Chapman. After the second motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order, the BOP moved Mr. Chapman to Terre Haute, Indiana. On December 4, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Chapman’s claims, and CRC students began discovery. Since February 2016, teams of CRC have served and responded to multiple sets of written discovery requests, briefed numerous substantive motions, taken dozens of depositions of BOP officials, conducted entries on land at ADX and USP-Terre Haute, and appeared in discovery dispute hearings in federal court. Discovery is now closed, and Mr. Chapman’s case should be set for trial in the next year.
Moonshadow v. Raemisch and Lish (“Moonshadow I”): CRC students currently represent Jayde Moonshadow, a male-to-female transgender prisoner currently incarcerated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) at Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF). The CRC was appointed to represent Ms. Moonshadow in March 2017, after Ms. Moonshadow filed a pro se complaint in federal district court requesting CDOC provide her with a bra and electrolysis. CDOC is providing Ms. Moonshadow hormone therapy to treat her diagnosed gender dysphoria; however, CDOC refuses to provide any treatment for gender dysphoria beyond hormone therapy. After appointment, CRC student attorneys drafted an amended complaint alleging that CDOC’s refusal to provide Ms. Moonshadow a bra and electrolysis as further treatment for her gender identity disorder amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The amended complaint also asserts a facial challenge to CDOC’s blanket policy prohibiting any treatment of gender dysphoria beyond hormone therapy and an Equal Protection challenge to CDOC’s clothing policy. After filing the amended complaint, CRC students served written discovery requests; discovery is ongoing in this case.
Moonshadow v. Raemisch and Lish (“Moonshadow II”): CRC students currently represent Jayde Moonshadow in a second civil action involving CDOC’s treatment of gender dysphoria. In this case, CRC student attorneys drafted a complaint challenging CDOC’s blanket refusal to evaluate transgender prisoners with diagnosed gender dysphoria for any medical treatment beyond hormone therapy, including for facial feminization treatment and gender reassignment surgery. The complaint in this case was filed in June 2017.
Shapiro v. Rynek, et al.: Anthony Shapiro is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF), a facility operated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC). Several teams of CRC students represented Mr. Shapiro in a federal lawsuit alleging that a CDOC staff member subjected him to an unlawful group strip search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Two teams of CRC students represented Mr. Shapiro through the discovery process (the CRC was appointed to represent Mr. Shapiro after his pro se complaint survived a motion to dismiss), including multiple depositions and briefing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In February 2017, a team of CRC student attorneys represented Mr. Shapiro in a four-day jury trial. Ultimately, the jury concluded that Mr. Shapiro was subjected to a group strip search on December 6, 2012, but determined that Mr. Shapiro did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence which CDOC defendant conducted that search. After judgment entered in favor of defendants and awarded them costs, the Colorado Attorney General’s office moved to alter the judgment to add an award of attorneys’ fees amounting to $167,219.00 to the judgment against Mr. Shapiro, an indigent life-sentenced prisoner making less than $0.60 a day ($12 a month). The CRC student team fervently opposed the motion and persuasively argued that the Court should in fact amend the judgment to eliminate the costs award assessed against Mr. Shapiro. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the Court found in favor of Mr. Shapiro, denying the Attorney General’s motion for attorneys’ fees and amending the judgment to eliminate the costs award. In its order, the Court found that Mr. Shapiro “actually prevailed on the single most important issue before the court” – that his “constitutional rights were violated.”
Decoteau v. Raemisch – Outdoor Exercise Class Action.
Students in the Civil Rights Clinic, along with our co-counsel the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, filed a class action lawsuit challenging the Colorado Department of Corrections’ failure to provide outdoor exercise to prisoners at Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP), a supermax prison in Cañon City, CO. Student attorneys investigated the conditions of confinement at CSP, selected class action representatives, drafted and filed a complaint, drafted and filed a motion for partial summary judgment and responded to a defense motion for summary judgment, conducted discovery and began preparation for trial – in addition to, among many other tasks, handling a live radio interview, multiple press interviews, and appearing in federal court. The parties ultimately reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court at a final fairness hearing in June 2016. As a result of this lawsuit, all prisoners at CSP will receive access to outdoor exercise.
Anderson v. Colorado Department of Corrections, et al. CRC students represented Troy Anderson, a mentally ill prisoner who had been held in isolation for more than a decade at Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP), the state “supermax” prison. Mr. Anderson’s lawsuit sought improved mental health treatment and better conditions at CSP. Pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), Mr. Anderson sought effective medications to treat his mental illness. In addition, Mr. Anderson raised an Eighth Amendment claim challenging the fact that CSP did not permit any prisoner access to the outdoors. Mr. Anderson had not felt the sun for twelve years. Finally, the lawsuit challenged how prisoners at CSP progressed out of solitary confinement, claiming that the use of behavioral notes called “negative chrons” was arbitrary and violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These “chrons” could be entered by any staff member, for any reason, and result in prisoners, like Mr. Anderson, staying in solitary confinement for additional months. CRC students drafted the complaint, conducted extensive discovery, including an entry onto the CSP grounds and thirteen depositions. Starting on April 30, 2012, the students then conducted a seven-day bench trial, which included sixteen witnesses. News articles about the trial can be found here and here. CRC students also had the opportunity to work with co-counsel on this case, specifically Amy Robertson from the civil rights law firm of Fox & Robertson, P.C. (now the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center).
Oakley v. Raemisch, et al. CRC students represented Mr. Oakley in a lawsuit raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to the lack of outdoor exercise at Colorado State Penitentiary. Having taken over Mr. Oakley’s representation from another attorney at a later stage in this litigation, CRC student attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment on Mr. Oakley’s behalf, prepared for trial in Mr. Oakley’s case, and responded to a defense motion to dismiss, including arguing against the motion in federal court.
Mallory v. Jones, et al. CRC students represented Matthew Mallory, who was formerly incarcerated at Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF). While held in isolation in the custody of Colorado Department of Corrections, Mr. Mallory began to vomit blood. For four days, he told correctional officers and nursing staff, none of whom provided him with reasonable medical care, never even removing him from his cell to be examined. On the fourth day, he collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. Having lost 2/3 of his blood, Mr. Mallory was given emergency surgery and forced to remain in the hospital for weeks. Mr. Mallory sued nurses and correctional officers for their failure to treat him adequately, as well as managers in the prison who knew that bleeding ulcers were common but did not adequately train their staff to identify and treat this condition. Students drafted his complaint and took and defended seventeen depositions on his behalf. Extensive summary judgment briefing was done in this case, but prior to a decision, CRC students engaged in settlement negotiations with counsel for Defendants. The parties were able to reach a settlement agreement to resolve the case.
Jordan v. Pugh, 504 F.Supp.2d 1109. CRC students represented Mark Jordan, a prisoner confined at the federal “supermax” prison, in his First Amendment challenge to a federal Bureau of Prisons regulation that prohibits prisoners from “acting as a reporter” or “publishing under a byline.” CRC students conducted discovery, engaged in complex motions practice, and ultimately conducted a three-day bench trial that resulted in a decision striking the regulation as unconstitutional. A copy of the district court’s order may be found h“ere”:http://www.law.du.edu/documents/student-law-office-clinical-programs/Jordan-v-Pugh-WL.pdf.
Mohammed Saleh, et al., v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. CRC students represented three prisoners challenging several issues related to their conditions of confinement in the federal supermax prison, including infringement of their right to exercise their religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and a lack of due process as to their placement/continued confinement in ADX (all three clients were transferred to ADX after the events of September 11, 2001, despite there being no evidence that any of them was involved in the events of that day). The student attorneys working with these clients prepared an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of all three clients, propounded and responded to written discovery requests, conducted multiple depositions, worked with expert witnesses, and engaged in motions practice. In 2008, they were able to negotiate a settlement of the religion claims which may be found here.
Rezaq v. Nalley, et al. CRC students represented a prisoner who was placed in the federal supermax and held there for thirteen years without explanation of what he needed to do to be removed from isolation and returned to a regular, high-security prison. This claim—raised under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment—asked for increased procedures to explain why Mr. Rezaq was placed in solitary confinement at the supermax and why he continued to be held there. Though the claim survived a motion to dismiss, the district court found in favor of the government at summary judgment. This case was then consolidated on appeal with Saleh, and CRC students filed an appeal on behalf of the clients to the Tenth Circuit.
Silverstein v. Bureau of Prisons, et al. CRC students represented Tommy Silverstein, a prisoner confined in the federal supermax, in his lawsuit claiming that the Bureau of Prisons’ confinement of him under “no human contact” status for over 28 years constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Students working on this case researched and developed the client’s claims, drafted the complaint, conducted written discovery requests and depositions, and responded to complex motions involving issues of qualified immunity, personal jurisdiction and constitutional law. This work resulted in a landmark decision in which the district court held that extended solitary confinement—in and of itself—could violate that Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. At summary judgment, however, the court ruled in favor of Defendants on all claims. CRC students sought to have this decision reconsidered, and to supplement the record based on the increasing national trend against long-term solitary confinement. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, and the CRC appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Krystofik v. Great Western Floral Exchange, et al., CRC students represented a woman in her sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims against her former employer, who harassed her over a period of several months until the conditions of her employment were so intolerable that she was forced to resign. CRC represented the client in a state court action asserting statutory claims under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act as well as state tort claims. In 2008, the students representing Ms. Krystofik conducted discovery and filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf on their client, on which they prevailed. The decision granting summary judgment may be found here. They then conducted a damages hearing which resulted in an award of $70,000 to their client.
CRC represented a group of nine national and state organizations who filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff class in Shook v. El Paso County, a prisoners’ rights case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The plaintiffs brought suit in federal court on behalf of prisoners held in the El Paso County Jail in Colorado Springs, challenging inadequate mental health care. Student attorneys on this case coordinated the groups interested in participating as amici, researched the issues relating to certification of 23(b)(2) injunctive classes, and wrote a brief representing the interests of all amici that was filed in the Tenth Circuit.
CRC represented a Jewish man who was harassed at his job on the basis of his religion and was terminated after complaining about the harassing conduct. This case was litigated in federal district court, and student attorneys representing our client amended the client’s complaint to allege claims under Title VII, § 1981, and Colorado tort law. The students appeared in federal court for conferences and motions, drafted discovery requests, engaged in informal fact investigation, and filed and responded to discovery motions. Ultimately, the students negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of their client.
CRC students represented a man who is HIV+ and who was denied LASIK surgery on the basis of his HIV status in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as state contract and tort law. Shortly after filing a complaint in federal district court, the student attorneys negotiated a creative settlement for their client that provided him several nontraditional remedies that were specifically tailored to his objectives.