Full text
1
The United States District Court District of Colorado
901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433
Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams
v.
Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance,
JOE BARELA | JEFF FITZGERALD | Etc.
▲COURT USE ONLY▲
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |720-910-4829
1881 E 112th Pl, Northglenn Colorado 80233
Case Number:
1:24-cv-03390-RMR
Division: Courtroom
Plaintiff’s Motion for Time Extension, Electronic Service, Appointing Council, & Denial of
Pending Dismissal
Plaintiff Joshua Abrams, appearing pro se, disabled, and indigent, respectfully moves this Court
for an extension of time to file his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff further
respectfully requests that the Court authorize all future filings, notices, and communications from
the Court, the Clerk of Court, and Defendants’ counsel to be served upon him via email at
abramslive@gmail.com, in addition to standard U.S. Mail service, to prevent further undue
procedural disadvantage and ensure meaningful participation in this matter.
The procedural disadvantages caused by Plaintiff’s lack of electronic access and reliance on U.S.
Mail have already manifested in tangible injustice on the record.
On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff submitted an objection to Defendants’ Motion for Extension,
unaware that the Court had already ruled on April 7, 2025, because Plaintiff did not physically
receive the Court’s order by mail until after filing. This delay caused Plaintiff to make arguments
rendered moot by the undisclosed ruling, through no fault of his own.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 8
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER, COLORADO
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
8:04 am, May 02, 2025
2
Unlike Defendants, who receive same-day electronic notice through CM/ECF, Plaintiff remains
forced to rely on delayed postal service, undermining his ability to meaningfully participate in
the proceedings, respond timely to Court rulings, and avoid procedural confusion.
These structural disparities have already materially impaired Plaintiff’s ability to litigate
effectively and continue to do so with each critical filing delayed or missed. To preserve basic
fairness and due process, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court authorize electronic service.
While Plaintiff was able to submit a Reply Brief to Defendants’ Response to the Emergency
Motion for Injunctive Relief today, this was only accomplished through extraordinary
unsustainable personal effort and expense under circumstances radically different from those
faced by Defendants. Plaintiff operates entirely without legal counsel, assistants, clerical staff, or
access to internal case management systems. He must manage all aspects of litigation—including
research, drafting, service, and compliance—while simultaneously struggling to secure basic
survival needs, including housing and food, amid severe financial and personal hardship. These
burdens were compounded this week by a bout of food poisoning and urgent medical issues
involving Plaintiff’s service animal, requiring immediate attention.
The imbalance between the parties’ resources, combined with the logistical disadvantages
imposed by lack of electronic filing access, justifies modest additional time to ensure a full and
fair opportunity to address the significant constitutional and statutory issues raised.
Request for Additional Time to respond to motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s benefits are scheduled to expire within the next four weeks, and Plaintiff currently
faces the imminent risk of housing instability, without pending job interviews or secured
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 8
3
employment. Plaintiff’s indigency status has already been judicially recognized, and the demands
placed upon Plaintiff to litigate complex constitutional and statutory claims under strict
procedural timelines — the same timelines afforded to represented parties with substantial
institutional support — create an unequal and unjust burden.
The 14-day response window for multiple complex matters, under conditions of delayed physical
service, places Plaintiff in an impossible position. Plaintiff respectfully submits that it is not
feasible, nor in the interests of justice, to expect a pro se indigent party to litigate on the same
schedule and standard as government counsel with full digital access, research resources, and
staff support.
In addition to preparing a more detailed constitutional reply regarding the systemic failures
outlined in the Emergency Motion, Plaintiff must now also address newly discovered statutory
and constitutional violations regarding the mishandling of claimant data, systemic privacy
violations, and improper outsourcing of sensitive personal information. These matters require
careful legal research, drafting, and likely consultation with available legal clinics or public
interest resources, all of which takes time given Plaintiff's resource constraints.
Given these extraordinary circumstances, Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of 21 days,
or such time as the Court deems reasonable, to prepare a thorough and complete response
addressing both the pending motions and any supplemental filings that may be necessary in light
of the newly discovered violations.
Request for Authorization of Email Service to Ensure Equal Access
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 8
4
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court authorize all parties, including Defendants’ counsel
and the Clerk of Court, to serve Plaintiff by email in addition to U.S. Mail. Plaintiff consents to
electronic service at abramslive@gmail.com.
At present, Defendants’ counsel receives immediate access to all filings through the ECF system,
while Plaintiff, a pro se litigant without PACER privileges, must rely on delayed U.S. Mail.
Plaintiff has previously PACER experience and has no interest in pursuing it due to persistent
billing errors, delayed notifications, and technical obstacles experienced in other proceedings,
which further undermine timely access to critical filings and require clerical and external remedy
while also agreeing to procedures that undermine my rights. This disparity materially impacts
Plaintiff’s ability to respond within procedural deadlines, effectively denying the equal access to
the courts guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) authorizes electronic service with consent, and this
Court retains inherent discretion to ensure fairness in pro se proceedings. Authorizing email
service would remedy the avoidable prejudice caused by delayed paper delivery, promote
judicial efficiency, and uphold the principles of fundamental fairness.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order authorizing electronic service to and
from Plaintiff at abramslive@gmail.com, effective immediately.
Request for Clarification and Renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff further respectfully renews his request that the Court consider appointing counsel under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 8
5
The complexity, magnitude, and urgency of the issues raised—including alleged ongoing
violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments; Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act; the Social Security Act; the Privacy Act of 1974; and the
Federal Information Security Modernization Act—necessitate the assistance of appointed
counsel. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and indigent, is unable to meaningfully navigate these
overlapping constitutional, statutory, and systemic challenges without assistance, particularly as
new evidence has revealed additional, widespread federal privacy violations affecting millions of
current and former unemployment claimants in Colorado.
Appointment of counsel would serve the interests of justice, safeguard constitutional rights at
stake, and aid in the efficient management of this increasingly complex matter, especially as new
dimensions of irreparable harm—such as identity theft risks, unlawful data sharing, and
deprivation of critical subsistence benefits—have now been substantiated.
Additionally, Plaintiff respectfully requests clarification from the Court as to whether the newly
identified federal statutory privacy and data governance violations should be raised through a
supplemental memorandum supporting injunctive relief or whether Plaintiff should seek leave to
file an amended complaint. Plaintiff stands ready to proceed in the manner the Court deems most
appropriate to avoid unnecessary duplication or confusion in the record.
Statement on recent Privacy and Data Revelations:
Plaintiff respectfully notifies the Court that recent independent research and review this week
uncovered newly materialized constitutional and statutory violations involving data privacy,
security, and the mishandling of personally identifiable information (PII) by Defendants. These
serious violations were not originally known or pled at the time of filing the initial Complaint or
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 8
6
Emergency Motion, but have since become undeniable based on public records, budget hearings,
and Defendants’ own admissions.
The revelations include significant issues implicating the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a),
Colorado state data privacy laws (C.R.S. §§ 6-1-713 to 713.5), HIPAA protections (where
medical or disability-related data is collected), and CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information)
handling standards. These issues are severe, directly harm Plaintiff and thousands of other
claimants, and are closely intertwined with the systemic due process and ADA violations.
Given the gravity of these additional constitutional breaches, Plaintiff respectfully requests the
Court’s guidance as to whether these facts should be addressed through an amended complaint, a
supplemental filing, or another procedural method the Court deems appropriate. Plaintiff seeks to
comply fully with the Court’s preferred structure while avoiding unnecessary delay.
Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without further delay or engagement
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the Reply Brief to
Defendants’ Response to the Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, submitted
contemporaneously on May 1, 2025. The Reply Brief directly addresses and rebuts the
core arguments raised by Defendants in both their Response and Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff further requests that the Court, in its discretion, weigh the substantial merits
established in the concurrently filed Reply Brief—including the demonstrated
constitutional violations, systemic administrative failures, and irreparable harms—when
considering Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, even without having read it, as it
likely relies on the same deficient diversionary tactics. Further interpretation is
unnecessary given the substantive and detailed nature of the Reply Brief to the Emergency
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 8
7
Injunction, which irrevocably proves that the case is likely to succeed and is not properly
subject to early dismissal based on arguments that do not reflect the record or practices.
Given the clear factual and legal deficiencies in Defendants’ dismissal arguments, Plaintiff
respectfully submits that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied without further delay,
and that this case should proceed directly to discovery and, if appropriate, Continuing to
entertain legally and factually deficient defenses and requiring of exhaustive time and
resources to do so only serves to prolong ongoing constitutional harms and imposes
unnecessary burdens on judicial resources and the Plaintiff alike.
The record now before the Court, supplemented by the May 1, 2025 Reply Brief and
supporting exhibits, provides overwhelming factual and legal support warranting the
denial of dismissal and the advancement of this matter toward a prompt resolution on the
merits. Plaintiff respectfully submits that further procedural delays or piecemeal litigation
would only perpetuate the ongoing constitutional harms already well-documented.
Relief Requested:
1. Grant Plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to submit all pending replies, supplemental
memoranda, and/or any amended pleadings necessary to address the expanded
constitutional and statutory issues uncovered to approximately May 26th.
2. Plaintiff further respectfully requests that the Court reaffirm or clarify the status of
Plaintiff’s previously filed requests, including the Motion titled "Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default, Injunctive Relief, Enforcement, Sanctions, and Hearing," filed in March 2025. In
that Motion, Plaintiff formally requested the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) to assist in addressing the systemic constitutional violations presented. While
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 8
8
portions of that earlier motion may now be procedurally moot or overtaken by subsequent
developments, Plaintiff asks the Court to confirm that the request for appointment of
counsel remains pending and under consideration.
3. Direct that all future service of orders, filings, and communications upon Plaintiff be
permitted electronically by email, in order to prevent further procedural disadvantage
caused by delayed U.S. Mail delivery and ensure equal access to the Court.
4. Clarify whether Plaintiff should seek leave to amend the Complaint, file a supplemental
memorandum, or proceed through another method to properly address the newly
discovered systemic privacy and data security violations, including breaches of the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), Colorado Privacy Act (C.R.S. § 6-1-713),
HIPAA, and related federal data protection standards.
5. Deny the pending motion to dismiss as premature and legally deficient without requiring
further engagement by the Plaintiff( making further extension for time not necessary) to
move case forward to discovery stage.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
Date: 05-01-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 05-01-2025 a true and accurate copy of the Defendant was served on the other party by:
X_E-filed, lauren.davison@coag.gov & Stephen.woolsey@coag.gov
__________________________________________
❑Petitioner/Plaintiff
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 35 filed 05/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 8