Motion_Sanctions unemployment

Date: 2025-03-07

Summary

A pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Default, Injunctive Relief, Enforcement, Sanctions, and Hearing filed March 25, 2025 by Joshua Abrams against the Division of Unemployment Insurance in Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR, Document 17, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The motion states that a March 7, 2025 order directed the U.S. Marshals to serve the defendants and required a response within fourteen days, and that no defendant had responded by March 25, 2025. It asks the clerk to enter default under Rule 55(a) and the court to enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). It also asks the court to grant the Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, order the defendants to show cause on civil contempt, appoint a Special Master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), set a hearing and impose sanctions.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 6

The United States District Court District of Colorado
901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433
FILED
Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER, COLORADO
v. 4:18 pm, Mar 25, 2025

Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance, JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

251 E 12th Ave Denver, CO 80203
[Joe Barela, Jeff Fitzgerald, John/Jane Doe(s) ]
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |609-968-9360 Case Number:
10722 N Parfet Street Westminster Colorado 80021 1:24-cv-03390-RMR
Division: Courtroom
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default, Injunctive Relief, Enforcement, Sanctions, and Hearing

Plaintiff Joshua Abrams respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter default judgment

against all named Defendants, grant Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief in full,

set a hearing to address enforcement and next steps, appoint a Special Master to oversee

compliance, impose appropriate sanctions for continued noncompliance, and assign

court-appointed counsel should the Court find it appropriate. Defendants have failed to comply

with this Court’s March 7, 2025 Order requiring a response within fourteen (14) days of service,

which was completed the same day. As of the date of this filing, March 25, 2025, no appearance,

response, or defense has been submitted by any Defendant.

I. Background

1. Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief on February 26, 2025, along

with a supporting legal brief on March 19th with evidentiary exhibit detailing ongoing

constitutional and statutory harm caused by the Defendants’ failure to process
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 6

unemployment benefits and maintain accessible communications.

2. On March 7, 2025, this Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshals to serve the

Defendants and require them to respond within fourteen (14) days of service.

3. Service was completed that same day, March 7, 2025. The response deadline was

therefore March 21, 2025.

4. As of March 25, 2025, no Defendant has entered an appearance or submitted any

response, in direct violation of the Court’s order. Plaintiff called the clerk that day and

confirmed no entry or submissions by the defendant exist.

5. Despite proper service this continued silence appears to violate the Court’s lawful order

requiring a response within fourteen (14) days of service. The absence of any

communication or filing suggests a failure to respect the Court’s directive and raises

concerns of noncompliance warranting judicial intervention.

II. Legal Standards and Authority

A. Default Judgment is Appropriate Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)

A default judgment is warranted where, as here, the Defendants have been served and have failed

to plead or otherwise defend. The Court set a clear deadline for responsive pleading. Defendants

have failed to meet it, forfeiting their right to contest the allegations. Federal courts may enter

default judgment where a defendant fails to respond after proper service. This is considered

admission by omission. Under Rule 55, courts enter default judgment after the clerk records a

defendant’s failure to respond (Rule 55(a)), followed by judgment (Rule 55(b)).

B. Emergency Injunctive Relief Should Be Granted in Full
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 6

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion is both legally sound and factually supported by attached

evidence. No opposition has been filed. The record demonstrates irreparable and ongoing harm

to constitutional rights, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the requested relief

immediately and in full.

Under well-established federal law, a preliminary injunction requires the Plaintiff to establish:

1. A likelihood of success on the merits, which is supported here by Defendants’ default and

failure to contest any of the allegations combined with the Plaintiff’s well supported

complaint, motions and briefs.;

2. A likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of relief, as documented in attached

Exhibits and Plaintiff’s supporting brief, including risk of homelessness, eviction, hunger,

and harm to medically vulnerable to himself and other individuals;

3. That the balance of equities favors Plaintiff, who faces life-altering deprivation, while

Defendants face only the administrative burden of compliance with their legal duties;

4. That the public interest strongly supports granting relief, as the matter involves

fundamental access to essential services, constitutional due process, and governmental

accountability.

III. Systemic Harm Justifies Immediate Judicial Action

This case does not involve a singular, isolated denial of benefits. As required for ex parte

emergency relief, the supporting exhibit and legal brief filed by Plaintiff demonstrate a systemic

failure that affects hundreds, potentially thousands, of similarly situated individuals.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 6

While Plaintiff does not formally represent other claimants in a legal capacity, the scope and

scale of the documented harm satisfies the requirement for ex parte relief: that the injustice is not

limited to one party but is widespread, unredressed, and actively escalating. The current failures

of the Defendant agency place lives at risk through evictions, utility shutoffs, hunger,

homelessness, mental health breakdowns, and potentially death — especially among the elderly,

disabled, and medically fragile. Each day of delay results in further irreparable harm. This is not

merely a matter of administrative oversight. It is a profound and ongoing constitutional crisis.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court direct the Clerk to enter default pursuant to Rule

55(a) based on Defendants’ failure to plead or otherwise defend after being properly served and

in violation of this Court’s March 7, 2025 order. To the extent this filing is construed as a

combined motion under Rule 55, Plaintiff requests both the Clerk’s entry of default and the

Court’s entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b), given the urgent nature of the constitutional

violations presented and Defendants’ lack of engagement, judicial action may be warranted.

While Plaintiff remains fully capable and committed to prosecuting this matter pro se, the

complexity of the constitutional issues, the scale of systemic harm, and the practical challenges

of litigating against a state agency and multiple high-ranking officials present significant barriers

to ensuring full and fair adjudication. The interests of justice would be better served by

court-appointed counsel, as permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), particularly where the

outcome of this case may impact hundreds or thousands of similarly situated individuals.

Plaintiff lacks the financial resources, procedural access, and institutional support required to

conduct depositions of government officials, compel document production, or navigate pretrial

discovery involving administrative processes and internal policies. These are functions typically
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 6

reserved for experienced attorneys, and without such support, essential evidence and testimony

may remain inaccessible.

Federal courts have recognized that appointment of counsel may be appropriate in civil cases

involving systemic constitutional claims or exceptional public interest. Plaintiff respectfully

requests that, should the Court determine that formal representation would promote judicial

efficiency or assist in resolution of these broader public harms, court-appointed counsel be

assigned to assist or advise in this matter. This would not only ease the burden on Plaintiff in

navigating complex legal procedures, but would also streamline the process for the Court by

reducing ambiguity, minimizing procedural errors, and eliminating the need for the Court to

interpret, correct, or compensate for the limitations of a self-represented litigant.

Request for Hearing

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court set a prompt hearing date to address this motion,

clarify any procedural requirements, and consider enforcement mechanisms—including potential

sanctions—should Defendants continue to remain noncompliant. A hearing would allow the

Court to evaluate the seriousness of the ongoing harm, determine the next steps in light of

Defendants’ default, and set appropriate deadlines or consequences for continued inaction.

IV. Request for Relief

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Schedule a hearing to consider enforcement of this Court’s order, discuss appropriate next

steps, and provide Defendants with an opportunity to appear before sanctions.

2. Direct the Clerk to enter default against all named Defendants under Rule 55(a);
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 17 filed 03/25/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 6

3. Enter Default Judgment against all Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b);

4. Grant Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief in full as unopposed;

5. Issue an Order to Show Cause as to why each named Defendant should not be held in

civil contempt for violating a direct court order;

6. Set an enforceable compliance deadline, such as seven (7) calendar days from the date of

this order, for Defendants to restore claimant access, initiate communication channels,

and submit a sworn declaration of remediation;

7. Assign a court-appointed counsel to assist or advise in this matter.

8. Appoint a Special Master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to monitor ongoing implementation

and compliance and report to the Court as needed;

9. Issue Penalties and Sanctions Where and When Appropriate:

○ Impose escalating fines per day per individual Defendant to the amount the courts

feel just if agency sanctions fail after 7 days, following a hearing;

○ Retain discretion to increase sanctions or impose other coercive measures if

noncompliance persists, ensuring enforcement aligns with the harm’s severity.

10. Any and all further relief the Court deems just and appropriate in light of the severity of

the ongoing constitutional harm.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

Date: 03-25-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff

Joshua Abrams, Pro Se

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.17.0.pdf
Size: 152,022 bytes
SHA-256: 7afd65ebf113bc8ce6868129b3c68abd5880186fc4f22a6bac727255434193a3
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.239393.17.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Motion_Sanctions unemployment

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records