IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02285-NYW

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, d/b/a 

DISABILITY LAW COLORADO,

Plaintiff,

v. 

REGGIE BICHA, 

in his official capacity as Executive Director 

of the Colorado Department of Human Services, and 

JILL MARSHALL, in her official capacity 

as Chief Executive Officer of the Colorado Mental Health 

Institute at Pueblo, 

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

The July 2016 Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 78-1) set deadlines by which Defendants 

must—unless validly invoking a six-month exception for “Departmental Special Circumstances” 

(“DSC”)—admit jailed persons awaiting competency evaluations or restorative treatment to the 

state mental hospital (“CMHIP”). Plaintiff seeks legal rulings that Defendants (a) currently are 

in breach of those deadlines; (b) could not legally have invoked the DSC exception a second time 

in December 2017; and (c) did not satisfy the six-month DSC exception in December 2017. 

Based on those rulings, the Court should order immediate compliance with the deadlines (upon 

pain of contempt). 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 16
- 2 - 

Background 

The 2016 Settlement Agreement set “timeframe” deadlines for admitting jailed persons 

needing state hospitalization for competency evaluations and restorative treatment: Defendants 

must admit such persons within 28 days and maintain a monthly “days waiting” average of 24 

days. Dkt. 78-1. These deadlines, needed to ensure timely mental health evaluation and 

treatment, do not mean pretrial detainees will receive hospital admission within 28 days of arrest; 

to the contrary, the deadlines are triggered only after a court order for competency evaluation or 

treatment renders a jailed detainee “ready for admission.”

1

 This means that pretrial detainees 

often are forced to wait weeks or months in jail before the 28-day clock begins to run. 

This 2016 Settlement Agreement, addressing the State’s unconstitutional warehousing of 

mentally incompetent persons in Colorado’s county jails, replaced a prior 2012 agreement that 

Defendants violated. The unconstitutionally prolonged detentions, dating back more than a 

decade, spawned multiple contempt citations against state officials in 2007. See People v. 

Zuniga, No. 06CR999 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Jan. 3, 2007); People v. Kirkwood, No. 06CR5797 (Colo. 

Dist. Ct. Jan. 3, 2007); People v. Sims, No. 05CR2272 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Jan. 3, 2007) (attached as 

Ex. 1). After Denver District Court Judge Egelhoff appointed special counsel to litigate 

contempt citations against the Director of Human Services and the CMHIP Superintendent to 

alleviate the problem of jail wait times for individuals awaiting competency evaluations. In 

those instances, jail detainees were sitting in jail for many months awaiting transport to CMHIP 

for competency evaluations. The contempt citations and orders resulted in a comprehensive 

 

1

 The “Ready for Admission Date” is “the date on which the Hospital has received the Court 

Order for admission to the Hospital and the Collateral Materials.” Dkt. 78-1 ¶ 1(s); see id. ¶ 1(e) 

(defining collateral materials as relevant police incident reports and charging documents). The 

delays challenged here do not result from delayed receipt of any collateral materials. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 16
- 3 - 

settlement agreement that, at that time, effectively resolved that systemic issue but ultimately 

expired. This federal litigation, filed by Plaintiff in 2011, then ensued. 

The 2012 agreement that should have resolved this federal case was finalized after 

several settlement conferences with then-Magistrate Judge Boland. Dkt. 51-1. It was 

incorporated by reference in the 2012 dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt. 52. 

In 2015, the Court reopened the matter after Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendants 

had breached the 2012 agreement, including by falsifying monthly report data and failing to 

disclose a waitlist showing more than 80 people waiting in jails beyond the deadlines. Dkt. 62 

(order reopening case); see Dkt. 53 (motion to reopen). Mediation helped produce the 2016 

Settlement Agreement, which this Court retained jurisdiction to enforce. Dkt. 78-1 ¶¶ 3, 4. 

Defendants soon began failing to meet their deadlines again. On June 22, 2017, less than 

a year after the 2016 agreement, they invoked the six-month DSC exception. See Ex. 2 (first 

DSC Notice). Defendants claimed they could not meet the deadlines due to “an unanticipated 

spike in court-ordered referrals for inpatient competency evaluation and restoration treatment 

services.” Id. at 1. 

Then, on December 22, 2017, the day the Department’s six-month suspension period was 

set to expire, Defendants invoked the six-month DSC exception a second time. Ex. 3 (second 

DSC Notice). That DSC notice cited an “unabated” and “sustained increase” in court orders for 

evaluation and restoration as the reason why Defendants could not meet the deadlines. See id. at 

1-2. Defendants had no legal or factual basis to invoke DSC back-to-back. 

That second DSC invocation, even if valid, would have expired on June 22, 2018, and 

Defendants have not made a third DSC invocation. For more than a year, Defendants have been 

in abject noncompliance with the agreed-upon deadlines of the 2016 Settlement Agreement. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 16
- 4 - 

Instead of waiting a maximum of 28 days, detainees routinely sit in jails waiting more than 100 

days—two to three extra months—to be transported for inpatient restoration treatment. The wait 

list now surpasses 200 detainees. 

Argument

2

Plaintiff seeks enforcement, as well as construction, of the 2016 Settlement Agreement. 

The issues, on which material facts are undisputed, are whether Defendants are now in “noncompliance with the Settlement Agreement” (and whether they previously were in noncompliance when they invoked DSC) and, if so, the appropriate “remedies.” See Dkt. 88 at 2. 

Defendants’ pre-June 2018 non-compliance, including whether they wrongly invoked 

DSC to suspend timeframes for another six-month period beginning December 2017, is relevant 

not just when considering contempt remedies but also to extending the 2016 agreement’s 

duration beyond July 31, 2021. See Dkt. 78-1 ¶¶ 4(a-c) (framework for extensions to the 

agreement’s duration). 

The controlling law is straightforward. The “violation of a settlement agreement over 

which the court has retained jurisdiction is subject to state contract law regarding the prima facie 

elements, affirmative defenses, and remedies of and for breach of contract.” See Macias v. N.M. 

Dep’t of Labor, 300 F.R.D. 529, 553 (D.N.M. 2014) (citations omitted). Because the parties 

 

2

 The Court has ordered that this motion to enforce the settlement agreement be styled as a 

motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 90 at 1. DLC omits a standard of review section and adopts 

this Court’s prior recitations of the well-established F.R.C.P. 56 summary judgment standard. 

E.g., Chesser v. Dir. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 15-cv-01939-NYW, 2018 WL 3729511, at *2 

(D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2018) (laying out standard). 

The Court has instructed the parties to create a joint evidentiary submission and list of stipulated 

facts. Dkt. 90 at 2. The facts here, which are largely the statistics produced from tabulating 

Defendants’ own monthly records, should all be undisputed and DLC will confer with 

Defendants to create that list and joint evidentiary submission by the September 17, 2018 

deadline. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 16
- 5 - 

indisputably entered into the agreement, and there is no denying that Plaintiff complied with its 

obligations, the only issue is whether Defendants have breached their obligations. See Colo. Jury 

Instr., Civil § 30:10 (breach of contract elements). 

Defendants now are breaching the agreed-upon deadlines and have been in breach ever 

since December 22, 2017, when they invoked DSC for a second time. The Court should order 

immediate compliance (upon pain of contempt). 

I. Defendants are violating the 2016 Settlement Agreement. 

A. Defendants have not met the deadlines for more than a year. 

In every month since June 2017, Defendants have failed to admit all eligible pretrial 

detainees within 28 days and failed to maintain a monthly average of 24 days. The report of an 

Independent Consultant, issued in accord with the Settlement Agreement’s paragraph 7, found 

that “currently the State is clearly failing to meet the deadlines contained in the Settlement 

Agreement.” Ex. 4 (Independent Consultant report). 

The below chart shows the noncompliance. It details the timelines since June 2017 for 

restorative treatment at CMHIP or a second facility in Arapahoe County, known as RISE.

Month 

Entries for 

Detainees on 

Wait List, 28+ 

Days 

Average 

Wait Time 

Longest Wait 

Time 

June 2017 3 23.93 29 

July 2017 36 28.12 45 

August 2017 87 37.35 56 

September 2017 104 47.26 68 

October 2017 120 58.17 88 

November 2017 145 66.46 87 

December 2017 170 67.14 129 

January 2018 177 72.84 129 

February 2018 194 74.51 114 

March 2018 221 90.24 133 

April 2018 214 87.34 136 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 16
- 6 - 

Month 

Entries for 

Detainees on 

Wait List, 28+ 

Days 

Average 

Wait Time 

Longest Wait 

Time 

May 2018 217 96.56 144 

June 2018 211 95.53 144 

July 2018 281 80.62 149 

Thus, in each month from March through July 2018, more than 200 detainees improperly 

held in jail awaiting restorative treatment beyond the timeframes, with the longest waiting at 

least 149 days—over five times the agreed-upon maximum wait time for a detainee. The 

monthly averages for inpatient evaluation and restoration are nearly quadruple the 24-day 

average required by the Settlement Agreement. 

These troubling numbers document cases in which real harms are being inflicted on 

vulnerable detainees needing mental health treatment. The State, in letters to judges and 

attorneys involved in numerous cases since April 2018, admits that it is holding pretrial detainees 

in jail for months even though it concedes the detainees would be better served in the 

community. Ex. 5 (Department’s letters to judges). In the past year, Defendants have received 

at least 15 orders to show cause related to their failure to timely provide competency and 

restoration services to pretrial detainnes and 44 orders for immediate placement at CMHIP. See

Ex. 6 (CORA Response). In some of these orders, judges have raised the potential for contempt 

citations if the detained criminal defendants are not transported for restoration within a certain 

time period. Id. 

The wait times bear no relationship to the offenses these individuals have been charged 

with, which are often low-level and non-violent misdemeanor charges stemming from their 

mental illnesses. The result of these lengthy, unconstitutional delays is a vicious cycle. The 

longer the State keeps these individuals locked in jail (usually in administrative segregation or in 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 16
- 7 - 

solitary isolation with permission to leave the cell for one hour a day) while awaiting evaluation 

and restorative services, the more exacerbated their mental illnesses become, thereby leading to 

longer restorative timeframes and a higher likelihood that these individuals will be deemed 

permanently incompetent. In many cases, the wait times exceed the amount of time (if any) 

these presumptively innocent individuals would have served if they had pled guilty. 

B. The second DSC invocation (in December 2017) was improper. 

Defendants had no authority under the Settlement Agreement to make a second DSC 

invocation, on December 22, 2017 (the day on which their first invocation in June 2017 was set 

to expire). Accordingly, Defendants were in noncompliance during all six months, from 

December 2017 through June 2018, covered by that second invocation. 

There is a “six months” limit on when invoking DSC may leave timeframe limits 

“temporarily suspended.” Dkt. 78-1 ¶¶ 6 & 6(c). Allowing successive DSC invocations, 

suspending timeframes twelve months (or potentially indefinitely), would violate contract 

construction principles by rendering those limits meaningless. See Summit Bank & Tr. v. Am. 

Modern Home Ins. Co., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1171 (D. Colo. 2014) (“The review of the contract 

must strive to give effect to all provisions so that none is rendered meaningless.”). Under this 

logic, the State would never be in breach, as it could serially re-invoke DSC every six months in 

perpetuity and never need to come back into compliance. It also would eliminate the threemonth extension provision found in the Settlement Agreement, which increases the term of the 

agreement by three months for each month in a given calendar year that the Department is unable 

to meet the timeframes set forth in Paragraph 2 of the agreement. See Dkt. 78-1 ¶ 4(b). 

While the Settlement Agreement does expressly permit successive invocations of 

Individual Special Circumstances (a separate “time out” provision limited to one specific 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 16
- 8 - 

person), it does not allow successive invocations of Departmental Special Circumstances. 

Specifically, the agreement allows multiple invocations for individual cases through the 

inclusion of express language in the agreement, but contains no provision for broader invocations 

of departmental special circumstances. Compare id. ¶ 6(b), with id. ¶ 6(c). Nor would Plaintiff 

ever have agreed to such terms, which would severely infringe the constitutional rights of pretrial 

detainees. 

At the very least, the second DSC invocation breached the implied covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing intended to “effectuate the intentions of the parties or to honor their reasonable 

expectations.” See Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493, 498 (Colo. 1995). At worst, it is a 

willful breach reflecting the State’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of pretrial 

detainees with mental illness. 

C. Neither DSC invocation was justified under the requisite standard. 

Neither the first nor second DSC invocation satisfied the standard for invoking 

Departmental Special Circumstances.

3

 The Settlement Agreement defines Departmental Special 

Circumstances as “circumstances beyond the control of the Department which impact the 

Department’s ability to comply with the timeframes set forth in Paragraph 2.” Dkt. 78-1 ¶ 

6(a)(ii) (emphasis added). “This could mean an unanticipated spike in referrals, a national or 

statewide disaster impacting admissions decisions system wide,” or some other “unique” or 

“unforeseen” circumstance. Id. 

 

3

 To streamline this case, DLC is not seeking an order from this Court that the June 2017 DSC 

invocation was invalid (though it could have and believes it would prevail). It presents these 

facts and arguments because the grounds for the alleged “unanticipated” spike is relevant to the 

Court’s analysis of whether the December 2017 DSC re-invocation was improper because reinvocation was not permitted and because the reason stated was invalid. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 16
- 9 - 

Defendants’ original June 2017 DSC invocation alleged that the Department had 

“experienced an unanticipated spike in court-ordered referrals for inpatient competency 

evaluation and restoration treatment services.” Ex. 2. It added that the increase in referrals, 

combined with “a decrease in the number of discharges,” has “result[ed] in fewer beds available 

to meet the demand.” Id. The second invocation, in December 2017, similarly stated that “the 

sustained increase in the number of court orders for inpatient competency restoration treatment 

has outpaced the Department’s capacity and is beyond its control.” Ex. 3. 

These invocations did not satisfy basic DSC requirements: that the event be something 

“outside the control of the Department”—something “unique” or “unforeseen,” akin to a 

“statewide disaster.” Dkt. 78-1 ¶¶ 6 & 6(c). The basis for Defendants’ invocation—lack of 

capacity caused by an increase in referrals—is wholly within the Department’s control. Notably, 

the Department’s failure to maintain adequate facilities to keep up with the pace of referrals is a 

problem that has plagued timely admission of pretrial detainees to CMHIP for decades. See Dkt. 

53 ¶¶ 39-58; see also Dkt. 53-8 ¶¶ 8-25. It, thus, cannot be considered a “statewide disaster,” or 

otherwise “unique” or “unforeseen.” 

In any event, the State’s own data shows their invocation is based on a false premise. 

Here are the monthly totals of new evaluations and restorations: 

Fiscal Year In Patient Competency 

Evaluations 

In Patient Restorations 

June 2016 25 45 

July 2016 21 47 

August 2016 32 46 

September 2016 25 53 

October 2016 28 43 

November 2016 23 72 

December 2016 24 48 

January 2017 27 58 

February 2017 28 58 

March 2017 27 54 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 16
- 10 - 

Fiscal Year In Patient Competency 

Evaluations 

In Patient Restorations 

April 2017 29 75 

May 2017 26 84 

June 2017 37 73 

July 2017 22 66 

August 2017 31 76 

September 2017 30 66 

October 2017 25 66 

November 2017 19 76 

December 2017 14 68 

January 2018 19 77 

February 2018 17 78 

March 2018 30 65 

April 2018 9 71 

May 2018 22 69 

June 2018 14 68 

July 2018 15 65 

Evaluations have increased and decreased but remained relatively flat over the last two 

years. See id. April 2018’s total of 9 evaluations was the lowest monthly total in over two years. 

As for restorations, there was some increase leading into the spring of 2017 when they peaked at 

84, but they have since decreased back to a lower level. This alleged unanticipated increase was 

the same reason (along with staff shortages then) given in 2015 to invoke DSC under the 2012 

agreement, after which the Department agreed to the same timeframes in the operative 2016 

agreement. An “unanticipated” spike cannot have lasted from 2015 through 2019. 

Defendants’ claim of an unanticipated spike is further discredited by the annual data for 

the last ten years. Here are the yearly statistics since 2005: 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 16
- 11 - 

Fiscal Year In Patient 

Competency 

Evaluations 

% Change In Patient 

Restorations 

% Change 

2005-06 115 - 167 - 

2006-07 144 25.2% 224 34.1% 

2007-08 184 27.8% 219 -2.2% 

2008-09 238 29.3% 170 -22.4% 

2009-10 275 15.5% 212 24.7% 

2010-11 276 0.4% 213 0.5% 

2011-12 287 3.9% 268 25.8% 

2012-13 355 23.7% 274 2.2% 

2013-14 378 6.4% 342 24.8% 

2014-15 415 9.7% 462 35.1% 

2015-16 326 -21.4% 550 19.0% 

2016-17 327 0.3% 711 29.3% 

2017-18 252 -22.94% 848 19.27% 

Evaluations have stabilized nearly 40% below the level they reached in 2014-15 (when 

the Department complied for most of the fiscal year). While there was a 29% increase in 

restorations from 2016-17, the Department has seen six increases of at least 24% in the last ten 

years. That 29% increase could not have been “unanticipated,” as the Department should have 

been preparing for such increases; its budgetary and planning failures were controllable. In 

fiscal year 2017-18, when the State has claimed to invoke DSC the entire time, it had an increase 

of 19%, a level which it has seen for five consecutive fiscal years and in seven of the last 9 fiscal 

years. 

In sum, the State faces an increasing demand on its system. But the increase has been a 

trend for the last decade and is not unanticipated. The Agreement does not give the Defendants a 

pass from their constitutional duties for an increase, but only for an unanticipated one that is 

outside its control. There was nothing unforeseen and unique about the Department’s lack of 

capacity to handle the 2017 increases in demand for restorations and the Department’s own data 

undercuts its claimed increase. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 16
- 12 - 

What is unanticipated is the State’s utter failure for a decade to create a plan of action to 

resolve these problems so that it could carry out its duties and obligations. It never sought 

guidance from experts or the independent consultant, and it did not commission a study or work 

with community stakeholders. Instead, it continued its typical myopic response to request funds 

for more bed space. And, in May 2018, it unsuccessfully sought legislative approval to enact a 

statute (SB18-252) that would have permitted the Defendants to incarcerate persons waiting in 

jail for restoration treatment for 5 months (instead of the agreed upon 28 days), in violation of 

the United States Constitution and the Settlement Agreement. 

II. The Court should compel immediate compliance upon pain of contempt. 

It is estimated that 25-30% of pretrial detainees listed in the Department’s reports are 

individuals being held in jail as a result of an arrest on a petty, misdemeanor, non-violent, or 

drug offense. Tragically, the length of their detention while waiting for an evaluation or 

treatment exceeds the jail sentence they likely would have received (if any) if they had pled 

guilty on the day they were arrested. Many of these pretrial detainees are seriously mentally ill 

and in danger of harming themselves or others, and are victimized by other detainees as they 

wait for a humane environment to be evaluated and treated. 

Beneath the bluster, the State admits they are violating the constitutional rights of 

thousands of Coloradans stuck on the waiting list. The State sent letters to judges and attorneys 

involved in 15 cases since April 2018. Ex. 5. In the letters, the State admits that it is holding 

pretrial detainees in jail for months whom it concedes would be better served in the community. 

Id. Sadly, the effort has not been as successful as it could have been because the State has failed 

to partner with community mental health centers—for example, the letters fail to provide judges 

any direction on what resources exist in the community if the detainees were to be released. 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 16
- 13 - 

The Department’s abysmal effort in 2017 and 2018 is part of an accelerating trend of 

failing to stay in compliance with the Settlement Agreement and the United States Constitution. 

In 2015, Defendants were unable to comply with the Settlement Agreement for ten of the twelve 

months. In 2016, they were out of compliance for five out of twelve months. In 2017, 

Defendants were out of compliance for the last seven months of the year. As of August 2018, 

they have been out of compliance for all of 2018, and it appears Defendants will not be back in 

compliance until at least July 2019 absent the Court’s involvement. The result will be a fiveyear period in which they have spent more time out of compliance than in compliance. 

With court intervention, however, compliance is possible. Specifically in cases where 

courts have issued orders to show cause or threatened Defendants with contempt, Defendants 

transport pretrial detainees for services quickly. In the past year, the Department has received at 

least 15 orders to show cause related to competency and restoration services at CMHIP and 44 

orders for immediate placement at CMHIP. Ex. 6. In some of these orders, but not all, the 

judges have raised the potential for contempt citations if the defendants are not transported for 

restoration within a certain time period. Id. 

Last month, Judge Jones of the Denver District Court issued an order requiring the 

immediate transport of a pretrial detainee who had been in jail waiting for restorative treatment 

for months or longer. Ex. 7 (Judge Jones Order). The immediate transport order highlights 

Defendants’ egregious conduct at-issue here: 

Subsequent to Defendant's motion, the Court received a letter from CDHS, dated 

July 5, 2018, indicating Defendant has yet to be admitted for restoration and 

requesting an extension to October 16, 2018 “to allow for admission and 

treatment prior to reassessment.” In other words, it is likely to be 6 months from 

the date of this Court's restoration order on April 13 before CDHS complies--

perhaps--with the order and responds to the Court. This is unacceptable on 

numerous levels: it flouts this Court's order and unduly delays not just one, but 

Defendant's three pending 2016 cases; it appears to violate a federal court 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 16
- 14 - 

settlement agreement; it is part of a pattern of conduct by CDHS (this Court has 

lost count of how often this scenario has occurred over the past 6 months); and, 

most importantly, it violates Defendant's constitutional rights. 

The Court orders CDHS to admit Defendant for restoration treatment within 7 

days of this Order. Failure to do so will result in the issuance of a contempt 

citation. 

Id. The pretrial detainee was transported within just seven days of the order. 

In another case, Judge Brody of the Denver District Court issued an order to show cause 

and contempt citation against Defendants. Ex. 8 (Judge Brody orders). In that case, the court 

had issued three separate orders requiring transport of the pretrial detainee, who had been found 

incompetent to proceed and committed to the custody of Defendants for restoration back in 

March of 2018. The August 24, 2018 contempt hearing was vacated yesterday when Defendants 

again transported the pretrial detainee while hundreds more wait in line. 

Plaintiff has tried with stakeholders across the State to force Defendants to adhere to the 

timelines in the Settlement Agreement. These efforts when dealing with individuals can never 

be as effective as a Court order requiring systemic compliance. 

This Court has that authority and power. This Court specifically reserved jurisdiction 

twice, in 2011 and in 2015, to address the situation at hand today. This Court has the power to 

find that Defendants are in breach of the Settlement Agreement and order their immediate 

compliance with the timelines enshrined within it. Plaintiff believes this step is the only way to 

force the Defendants to make the systemic improvements that they have spent years failing to do. 

The Court should order immediate compliance. If Defendants fail (again), then Plaintiff will 

pursue the available options such as contempt, along with its attendant fines and penalties. 

Because of the absurdity of the December 2017 consecutive invocation, the Court should 

make it clear in any order that the Defendants cannot invoke Department Special Circumstances 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 16
- 15 - 

yet again for this same alleged unabated increase in admissions but must find a way to comply 

with the Settlement Agreement’s timelines for the admission of pretrial detainees for evaluations 

and treatment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court should issue legal rulings that Defendants (a) currently are in breach of the 

2016 Settlement Agreement; (b) could not legally have invoked the DSC exception a second 

time in December 2017; and (c) breached the Agreement by failing to satisfy the six-month DSC 

exception in December 2017. Based on those rulings, the Court should order immediate 

compliance with the deadlines (upon pain of contempt). Finally, the Court should also award 

Plaintiff’s counsel their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. 

DATED: August 15, 2018. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Iris Eytan 

Iris Eytan 

EYTAN NIELSEN LLC 

3200 Cherry Creek South Drive 

Denver, CO 80209 

Telephone: 720.440.8155 

Facsimile: 720.440.8156 

Email: iris@eytan-nielsen.com 

s/ Caleb Durling 

Caleb Durling 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 

Denver, CO 80202 

Phone: (303) 945-7416 

Email: cdurling@foxrothschild.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Legal Advocacy, 

d/b/a Disability Law Colorado

s/ Mark J. Ivandick 

Mark J. Ivandick 

Jennifer Purrington 

DISABILITY LAW COLORADO

455 Sherman St., Ste. 130 

Denver, CO 80203 

Telephone: 303.722.0300 

Facsimile: 303.722.0720 

Email: mivandick@disabilitylawco.org 

s/ Ellie Lockwood 

Ellie Lockwood 

Timothy P. Scalo 

SNELL AND WILMER LLP 

1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1900 

Denver, CO 80202 

Telephone: 303-634-2000 

Facsimile: 303-634-2020 

Email: elockwood@swlaw.com; 

tscalo@swlaw.com 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 16
- 16 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 15, 2018, a true and correct copy of this 

motion was electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: 

Tanja E. Wheeler 

Lauren Peach 

Libbie McCarthy 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Colorado Department of Law 

State Services Section 

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 

1300 Broadway, 6th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Ph: 720-508-6151 

Fax: 720-508-6041 

tanja.wheeler@coag.gov 

Lauren.Peach@coag.gov

Libbie.McCarthy@coag.gov 

Counsel for Defendants 

 /s/Sandy Braverman 

 Sandy Braverman 

Case No. 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 96 filed 08/15/18 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 16