Case: Floyd v. Ortiz

1:81-cv-01754 | U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Filed Date: Oct. 5, 1981

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In October 1981, inmates at various state penal institutions in Colorado filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Colorado Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had violated their constitutional rights, depriving them of property by keeping the inmate funds in non-interest bearing accounts.In February 1982, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the D…

In October 1981, inmates at various state penal institutions in Colorado filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Colorado Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had violated their constitutional rights, depriving them of property by keeping the inmate funds in non-interest bearing accounts.

In February 1982, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, in which the plaintiffs relinquished their claims for interest earned on individual accounts and agreed to pursue grievance procedures before bringing legal claims in the future. The action was never formally dismissed by the court. In November 1983, the court reopened the case and entered an amended agreement, clarifying that the inmates would have separate, individualized accounts within the umbrella of the inmate trust account.

In May 2001, the plaintiffs asked the court to enforce the terms of the agreement and hold the defendants in contempt of court for failing to comply. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Judge John Kane) denied the plaintiff's petition, and the plaintiff appealed. On August 28, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Judge Carlos Lucero) denied the plaintiff's appeal, affirming the district court's decision. Floyd v. Ortiz, 300 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002). On May 21, 2003, the case was closed.

In May 2009, however, a motion to enforce the consent decree was again brought, this time by another inmate, acting as an Interested Party. Judge Kane granted the defendant's subsequent, and unopposed, motion to terminate prospective relief. The inmate filed a notice of appeal in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but failed to pay the filing fee. Consequently, his appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/31/2006)

Kevin Nomura (3/9/2015)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5029114/parties/floyd-v-ricketts/


Judge(s)

Kane, John L. Jr. (Colorado)

Lucero, Carlos F. (Colorado)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Katzman, Steven Bruce (Colorado)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Dailey, John Daniel (Colorado)

Gellar, Nicole S. (Colorado)

Salazar, Ken (Colorado)

Zolynas, Juliana M. (Colorado)

Judge(s)

Kane, John L. Jr. (Colorado)

Lucero, Carlos F. (Colorado)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Katzman, Steven Bruce (Colorado)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Dailey, John Daniel (Colorado)

Gellar, Nicole S. (Colorado)

Salazar, Ken (Colorado)

Zolynas, Juliana M. (Colorado)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:81-cv-01754

Docket

Floyd v. Ricketts

Sept. 14, 2010

Sept. 14, 2010

Docket

01-01295

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

300 F.3d 1223, 2002 U.S.App.LEXIS 17868

Aug. 28, 2002

Aug. 28, 2002

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5029114/floyd-v-ricketts/

Last updated Aug. 11, 2022, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
5

ORDER: Mr. Katzman is ORDERED to review Docs. 1-4 filed by Mr. Rueb and to confer with counsel of record or an appropriate designee Colorado Attorney Generals Office in an effort to resolve any DOC noncompliance with the Agreement. The Clerk shall ef ile this Order to Mr. Katzmans address of record and also send a courtesy copy to the address obtained from the 2009 Colorado Legal Directory. Counsel shall confer for the overarching purpose of REEXAMINING the Complaint in this case, together with the 1982 Agreements on which Judgment entered, as amended, with an eye to further amendment up to and including a formal closure/dismissal this action in its entirety. Joint Status Report due 01/15/2010, by Judge John L. Kane on 12/17/2009. (wjc, ) (Added on 12/18/2009: # 1 Correct Main Document) (lam, ). Modified on 12/18/2009 to add correct pdf(lam, ).

Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

RECAP
17

ORDER. Unopposed Motion to Terminate Prospective Relief Under 18 U.S.C. §3626 (b) is GRANTED. The prospective relief afforded the named inmates under the terms of the 1982 settlement agreement, as amended in 1984, is TERMINATED and this case is DEEMED CLOSED. No further pro se filings will be accepted in this case, and any filings received in contravention of this order may be STRICKEN. By Judge John L. Kane on 03/04/2010.(sah, )

March 4, 2010

March 4, 2010

RECAP
19

ORDER denying 18 Nonparty Justin Rueb's Motion for Reconsideration. Any further pro se filings in this closed case by Mr. Rueb will be STRICKEN, by Judge John L. Kane on 03/23/2010.(wjc, )

March 23, 2010

March 23, 2010

RECAP
23

ORDER to Cure Deficiency re 20 Notice of Appeal by Justin Rueb, by Judge John L. Kane on 03/29/10. Appellant has 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a proper 1915 motion with district court.(bjrsl, )

March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Colorado

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 5, 1981

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Inmates who petitioned to obtain contempt citations against executive director of Colorado department of corrections

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Colorado Department of Corrections, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1982 - 2002

Issues

General:

Loss or damage to property

Type of Facility:

Government-run