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 NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR
EMERGENCY STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff Joshua Abrams respectfully submits this urgent notice and formal request for an
immediate status conference in the above-captioned matter. This request is submitted pursuant to
the Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and ensure the fair and efficient
administration of justice.
Despite the filing of multiple time-sensitive motions including two emergency motions for
injunctive relief as well as Plaintiff’s pending motions for extension of time and supplemental
evidentiary filings, the Court has yet to take any substantive action or hold any hearing in this
matter. The only docket activity reflecting any judicial discretion thus far is the same-day
approval of an extension request filed by the Defendant, while Plaintiff’s motions, including one
pending for over two months, remain unaddressed.
This lack of balance in judicial response reflects a disturbing pattern of preferential treatment and
unequal access, raising serious concerns under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff is
a pro se, disabled, and indigent litigant, whose filings have been time-stamped and served
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 14
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DENVER, COLORADO
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
11:15 am, Jul 02, 2025
2
properly and well in advance of the Defendant’s. Yet Plaintiff has received no rulings, no
hearing, and no substantive consideration from this Court.
In the time since the last motion was filed, Plaintiff’s circumstances have worsened dramatically:
● Plaintiff has no income of any kind and no remaining unemployment benefits;
● Plaintiff’s fee waiver was approved based on indigency in January 2025, and his
condition has since deteriorated into life-threatening poverty;
● On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff received a 21-day notice to vacate and now faces imminent
eviction;
● Eviction would result in irreparable harm, including permanent housing discrimination
and loss of future rental opportunities which is especially devastating for a disabled
individual with a service animal;
● These harms are directly tied to Defendants’ unlawful denial of backpay and failure to
provide appealable processes, which the Court has yet to adjudicate despite the fully
briefed record.
Unequal Access in Protecting Unconstitutional Practices
Defendant(s) are being sued in their official capacity as a high-ranking representative of the
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), a state agency. Plaintiff has navigated
the Ex parte Young exception precisely and appropriately, seeking prospective injunctive relief to
compel compliance with federal law and constitutional protections not retroactive damages
barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The claims at issue involve active, ongoing
constitutional violations, including denial of due process, systemic ADA noncompliance, and the
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 14
3
obstruction of meaningful access to unemployment benefits owed to Plaintiff and countless
others under federal and state law.
And yet, the State of Colorado rather than acknowledging these violations and working toward
meaningful resolution has instead opted to spend public funds defending those violations. The
Attorney General’s Office now represents the Defendant under claims of qualified and sovereign
immunity and the supposed failure of Plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies, all while
refusing Plaintiff’s repeated requests for the appointment of counsel. Despite Plaintiff’s
indigency, disability, and demonstrated procedural diligence, he is given no access to
state-funded legal resources and no voice in the courtroom.
This is the embodiment of constitutional hypocrisy: a system that uses state money to defend
unconstitutional behavior, to protect those in power from accountability, and to preserve broken
policies while refusing to spend even one cent to help the harmed, indigent Plaintiff who seeks
only to restore lawful, fair, and just administration. Plaintiff has not received a single dollar of
state support in pursuing these claims. Instead, he has been met with institutional silence,
procedural neglect, and the weaponization of delay.
This dual-track system where the state pays itself to perpetuate harm but refuses to assist those
seeking to stop it undermines the very principles of equal protection, access to justice, and
constitutional accountability. It is not only unjust, but structurally unsustainable. This Court must
recognize that the Plaintiff is not simply requesting relief for personal harm, but raising alarms
about a systemic breach of public trust, and doing so with none of the institutional power or
resources the Defendant enjoys in abundance.
New Evidence of CDLE March 2025 Audit
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 14
4
Plaintiff notifies the Court of newly discovered material facts, unknown to Plaintiff at the time of
filing, which now dramatically amplify and substantiate the claims before this Court. In March
2025, a comprehensive audit conducted by the Colorado Office of the State Auditor revealed
systemic mismanagement, material weaknesses, and reckless misuse of public unemployment
insurance (UI) funds by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE).
Specifically, the audit found that CDLE failed to track over $127 million owed to employers,
miscalculated employer premiums for more than 30,000 businesses, and engaged in unauthorized
spending on flawed system modernization efforts.
More disturbingly, Plaintiff has recently discovered credible evidence of a widespread coercive
scheme by CDLE call center staff to funnel claimants into using the U.S. Bank ReliaCard under
duress. Plaintiff personally experienced and recorded such coercion in February and March of
2025 the Plaintiff is happy to submit this audio record and will be co-filing complaints with
appropriate law enforcement, where staff threatened that claims would be delayed or outright
denied if Plaintiff refused to enroll in the ReliaCard system. Claimants were not properly
informed of their right to receive payments by direct deposit or check and outright lied to the
Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s bank ‘rejecting’ their deposits which was later proven unlawful and
false when Plaintiff did start receiving benefits into that same bank which this call center lied
about it not being accepted or viable to receive benefits, and were instead pressured into the
ReliaCard option, which is known to carry excessive fees, delays, and limited customer service
access. These practices suggest unlawful profiteering by CDLE or its agents, either through
financial kickbacks, improper incentives, or abusive third-party contracting. This directly
implicates potential violations of federal anti-corruption statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 666, relating
to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds), as well as the Colorado
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 14
5
Constitution’s requirements for good governance and fiduciary duty over public benefit
administration.
These newly surfaced facts are not minor; they strike at the core of Plaintiff’s original claims of
systemic denial of due process, economic coercion, and unequal treatment. They further
reinforce Plaintiff’s allegations of a concealed or nonexistent appeals process, systemic
discrimination against disabled and indigent claimants, and irreparable harm resulting from
CDLE’s refusal to timely and lawfully process Plaintiff’s UI claim and backpay. The audit
findings also expose that the same UI infrastructure that harmed Plaintiff was widely
dysfunctional, not merely in Plaintiff’s isolated case, but across thousands of accounts statewide.
Plaintiff had no prior knowledge of these findings or legal precedents affirming the right of
claimants to refuse predatory payment methods or be free from coercion in the disbursement of
federally protected benefits. This new evidence not only supports Plaintiff’s request for
emergency injunctive relief, but also justifies a broader legal inquiry into CDLE’s contracting
practices, communication systems, and benefit disbursement policies under federal constitutional
standards, including the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Newly Discovered Legal Precedent/ Associated Case
Plaintiff only recently became aware of a materially relevant federal case, Paulie Keener v. Jared
Polis and Joe Barela (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed February 2021 and
amended May 2021), which further evidences a longstanding and troubling pattern of
unconstitutional conduct by the same defendants named in this case. In Keener, a pro se plaintiff
alleged that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), under the direction of
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 14
6
Defendant Joe Barela, unlawfully withheld unemployment benefits based on an incorrect
overpayment flag and failed to provide proper notice or due process. The case asserted violations
of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and while no published ruling confirms
a final judgment, the CDLE ultimately waived the debt, suggesting merit to the claims.
Importantly, this prior litigation names the same defendant and reflects strikingly similar
allegations of arbitrary benefit determinations, lack of adequate procedural protections, and
systemic disregard for constitutional rights. Plaintiff had no knowledge of this case or its
allegations when filing the instant action, and its existence now significantly strengthens
Plaintiff’s position by demonstrating that Defendant Barela has previously been accused of
materially similar constitutional violations under color of state law. This further supports the
need for immediate judicial scrutiny, injunctive relief, and a systemic review of the CDLE’s
conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Legal Authority & Arguments
Plaintiff’s request for an emergency status conference is grounded in well-established
constitutional principles and controlling precedent. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of
property interests such as unemployment benefits. In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970),
and Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the Court held that public benefits cannot be
terminated without proper procedures and individualized review. Plaintiff alleges that CDLE’s
concealment of appeal rights and coercive benefit delivery through third-party schemes (e.g.,
ReliaCard) violated these protections.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 14
7
Further, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), and Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank,
339 U.S. 306 (1950), affirm that when a person has a legitimate claim of entitlement to benefits,
due process demands clear notice and accessible redress. Plaintiff’s allegations show not only
denial of those safeguards but ongoing harm from the absence of any functioning appeal or
corrective system.
The threat of irreparable harm including eviction, medical neglect, and long-term damage to
Plaintiff’s housing record supports immediate relief. As held in Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7
(2008), and Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), courts may issue emergency relief when
constitutional rights are at stake and delay will cause harm that cannot later be undone.
This harm is compounded by judicial inaction and disparate treatment. The Court’s same-day
approval of Defendant’s motion for extension while leaving Plaintiff’s multiple motions
including for counsel, time extension, and injunctive relief unaddressed for months raises
concerns under Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), and Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817
(1977), both of which emphasize that indigent litigants must be afforded meaningful access to
courts, particularly when facing fundamental deprivation.
Plaintiff, as a disabled and pro se individual, is entitled to special consideration under Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which instruct
courts to construe pro se filings liberally and ensure fairness in light of a litigant’s lack of legal
training.
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief fall squarely within the scope of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908), which authorizes prospective relief against state officials for ongoing constitutional
violations, and is further supported by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 14
8
Finally, the recent 2025 Colorado State Audit and Plaintiff’s evidence of coercive third-party
benefit disbursement raise concerns under 18 U.S.C. § 666, a federal anti-corruption statute
barring theft or bribery in federally funded programs. These findings reinforce the systemic
nature of the misconduct alleged, as echoed in prior litigation such as Keener v. Polis and Barela
(D. Colo. 2021).
Together, these authorities affirm Plaintiff’s right to immediate judicial consideration and
underscore the constitutional and humanitarian urgency of this case.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff therefore respectfully demands that the Court schedule an immediate status conference
to address the critical and time-sensitive developments in this case. The need for this conference
is not procedural; it is urgent, life-threatening, and necessary to preserve Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights and physical survival.
1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and D. Colo. L. Civ. R. 16.1, Plaintiff
respectfully moves this Court for an immediate status conference to address urgent,
unresolved matters in this case. These include pending emergency injunctions, Plaintiff’s
request for appointment of counsel, and imminent irreparable harm due to the ongoing
denial of unemployment benefits and a formal 21-day notice to vacate. Under Rule 16(a),
the Court is expressly authorized to convene a pretrial conference to, among other things,
expedite disposition of the action, improve the quality of case management, and facilitate
resolution of critical pretrial issues. Given the gravity and time sensitivity of the issues
raised herein, a prompt conference is both procedurally proper and constitutionally
necessary.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 14
9
2. To evaluate newly discovered systemic and factual developments that materially impact
Plaintiff’s claims: Since the last filing, a 2025 Colorado State Audit has revealed
widespread mismanagement, fraud vulnerability, untracked federal UI funds, and reckless
administration of benefit systems under Defendant Barela’s supervision. Plaintiff has also
uncovered prior litigation (Keener v. Polis and Barela) involving materially similar
claims of constitutional harm arising from CDLE's benefit processing failures. These
facts were unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing and demonstrate that Plaintiff’s
claims are not isolated but symptomatic of systemic, long-standing constitutional
deficiencies within CDLE.
3. The potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666 which prohibits theft, bribery, or kickback
schemes in federally funded programs further underscore the need for injunctive relief to
immediately halt CDLE’s coercive benefit distribution practices. These practices, which
include pressure tactics by staff to force claimants into using third-party ReliaCard
systems under threat of denial or delay of benefits, raise serious constitutional and
statutory concerns. Such misconduct, if proven, falls squarely within the Ex parte Young
framework permitting prospective relief against state officials engaged in ongoing
unlawful conduct.
4. In support of these allegations, Plaintiff has preserved a recorded phone conversation in
which CDLE staff make statements consistent with coercion and systemic abuse. This
audio recording will be produced as Exhibit B and can be filed with the Court upon
request or formally authenticated at the requested status conference. This evidence further
substantiates the need for judicial intervention and a broader inquiry into CDLE’s benefit
administration practices.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 14
10
5. To prevent imminent, irreparable, and life-altering harm due to judicial inaction
and unequal treatment: On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff was served with a formal 21-day
notice to vacate his home. Without immediate judicial intervention, Plaintiff faces
imminent eviction, permanent damage to his housing record, and compounding trauma
that stems directly from the government’s unlawful withholding of unemployment
compensation and now, from this Court’s failure to act on Plaintiff’s emergency motions.
If the Court does not intervene in the coming days, it will not merely be a delay; it will
constitute an active failure to prevent the exact irreparable harm Plaintiff has warned of
for months. The gravity of this moment cannot be overstated. Plaintiff’s life, shelter,
medical access, and dignity are now at immediate risk, and the constitutional violations
that caused this emergency remain unremedied because no hearing has been held and no
action has been taken by the judiciary.
Conclusion
While the constitutional and life-threatening harms Plaintiff has personally suffered are
undeniable and well-documented, they do not exist in isolation. In prior emergency motions and
injunction filings, Plaintiff provided unrebutted factual assertions, supported by local
investigative journalism, public reports, and declarations from impacted individuals,
demonstrating that these same patterns of misconduct and procedural failure by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment have affected hundreds, if not thousands, of other
Colorado residents. These individuals, many indigent, disabled, or otherwise marginalized, have
faced eviction, medical crisis, death, or complete financial collapse, not as a result of market
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 10
of 14
11
forces or personal failure, but as a direct consequence of systemic dysfunction and constitutional
dereliction. The state’s failure to administer benefits properly, lawfully, or with meaningful due
process has stripped many of the financial protections and economic security explicitly promised
by Congress through federal unemployment insurance mandates, which Colorado is bound to
follow as a recipient of those federal funds.
Plaintiff's suffering alone would be sufficient to warrant judicial action yet this case also serves
as a symbolic and legal stand-in for the countless voiceless individuals who have been defeated,
dehumanized, or permanently harmed by the same government actors and the same failures.
Some are no longer alive to tell their stories. Others remain homeless, hospitalized, or
completely cut off from any path to recovery. Plaintiff therefore urges this Court not only to
acknowledge the grave personal urgency of his claims, but also to recognize the broader
constitutional emergency that has gone unaddressed for far too long. The law, if it is to mean
anything, must protect the vulnerable from systemic state abuse not enable or shield it under
procedural silence. This moment demands action, integrity, and judicial courage to confront the
scale and depth of constitutional failure now before the Court. This is not a procedural formality;
it is a final opportunity for the Court to fulfill its constitutional role as protector of rights, arbiter
of justice, and guardian against irreparable harm. Plaintiff demands this status conference not
only as a matter of fairness and function but as a matter of survival.
LASTLY The extraordinary length, complexity, and procedural convolution of this motion and of
Plaintiff’s filings generally is a direct reflection of this Court’s failure to grant Plaintiff’s timely
and well-founded request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff, a disabled and indigent litigant,
explicitly sought legal assistance not for personal gain but to ensure this case could be properly
articulated, documented, and advanced in the public interest. Instead, the Court has chosen to
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 11
of 14
12
delay action and deprioritize this matter while affording immediate relief to state defendants,
forcing Plaintiff to navigate this multi-layered constitutional litigation alone and under duress. If
any portion of this filing contains formatting errors, procedural deficiencies, or technical
missteps, they are not due to bad faith or lack of diligence; they are the foreseeable and avoidable
consequence of this Court’s failure to appoint counsel under applicable constitutional and
equitable standards. As established in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), pro se litigants are
entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings, and this principle must be honored where the
denial of assistance has directly compounded the complexity and urgency of the claims
presented.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the formal 21-day Notice to Vacate served on Plaintiff,
which underscores the legitimacy, urgency, and life-threatening nature of the harm now
unfolding. This is not a speculative threat or newly emerged concern Plaintiff began raising the
alarm about these issues and requesting judicial intervention as early as December 2024. The
consequences now facing Plaintiff, including potential eviction, homelessness, and permanent
damage to his housing record, are the direct and foreseeable result of this Court’s continued
failure to act on Plaintiff’s emergency motions and constitutional claims.
As a vulnerable, disabled, indigent, and self-represented litigant, Plaintiff is afforded the full
protection of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The attached notice
demonstrates in no uncertain terms that irreparable harm is not theoretical, it is imminent. It
threatens Plaintiff’s physical health, his service animal’s welfare, and his fundamental right to
shelter and access to justice. Judicial inaction at this stage would not be a neutral delay but a tacit
endorsement of the systemic deprivation Plaintiff has endured.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 12
of 14
13
Plaintiff prays that the Court act immediately to schedule a status conference and restore the
integrity and accessibility of these proceedings in accordance with law and equity.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
Date: 07-02-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff
Joshua Abrams, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on 07-02-2025 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 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 13
of 14
14
Exhibit A
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR Document 44 filed 07/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 14
of 14