On May 26, 2009, prisoners at the Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP) filed this pro se lawsuit against the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The main pro se plaintiff had been sentenced to death on May 17, 1996 and automatically incarcerated at CSP, the highest security level prison in the CDOC. He, along with others at the prison, were subject to a CSP policy prohibiting prisoners from any outdoors exercise. The plaintiffs asserted that this policy, specifically that the lack of sunlight, constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it created a substantial risk of harm to his mental and physical health. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
The plaintiff moved for class action certification on May 26, 2009 because he believed his claims were common to all 750 prisoners at the CSP. The court (Judge Zita Weinshienk) denied this motion on July 9, 2009, holding that, because the plaintiff was a pro se litigant, he could not represent other pro se litigants under federal law. She also denied his motion for a preliminary injunction allowing prisoners to exercise outside because plaintiff did not demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied. In addition, Judge Weinshienk dismissed some of the pro se plaintiffs and instructed the remaining plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
On September 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendant responded by filing a motion to dismiss in December of 2009. In January of 2010, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted.
On March 10, 2010, the last remaining plaintiff filed a third amended complaint to narrow his claim and the relief sought, and to amend the case caption to name only the executive director of the CDOC. The parties scheduled discovery, and on November 24, 2010, the defendant and plaintiff both moved for summary judgment.
On Feb 9, 2011 the case was reassigned to Judge William J. Martinez upon his recent appointment on the court. The parties continued to prepare for trial.
On May 20, 2011, attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union began representing the plaintiff, and on May 25, 2011, there was a settlement on all claims and the case was administratively closed, presumably because the settlement agreement reserves the right for the plaintiff to come to court to enforce the agreement.
Amanda Kenner - 02/03/2017
compress summary
