Emergency Injunction 09-2025

Summary

An emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, filed pro se by plaintiff Joshua Abrams on September 22, 2025 as Document 55 in Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The motion asks the court to order reprocessing of the plaintiff's 2023 unemployment insurance claim within ten days, with a written determination addressing an underpayment dispute and aggregation of out-of-state wages under 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1), and an ADA accommodation plan. It also seeks interim process guardrails, including a written ADA request pathway, acknowledgment of accommodation requests within five business days, and a 45-day appeal window from actual receipt of a compliant notice. It requests waiver of the Rule 65(c) security requirement or a nominal bond of one dollar.

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 55         filed 09/22/25     USDC Colorado                 pg 1
                                             of 10

                                                                                                        1 of 10




   The United States District Court District of Colorado
   901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433                                FILED
                                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
   Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams                                                DENVER, COLORADO
   v.                                                                           8:27 am, Sep 22, 2025

                                                                        JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
   Defendant(s): Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al
                                                                            ▲COURT USE ONLY▲

   Joshua Abrams, Pro Se | abramslive@gmail.com |720-910-4829              Case Number:
   P.O. Box 761 Loveland CO 80539                                                 1:24-cv-03390
                                                                           Division:      Courtroom
                                    Plaintiff’s Emergency Injunction

 Plaintiff respectfully seeks a narrow temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary

 injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to prevent ongoing constitutional and

 statutory harms in Colorado’s administration of unemployment insurance (UI). Plaintiff requests

 injunctive relief by: (1) ordering prompt reprocessing of his 2023 claim with due process and

 ADA accommodations, including proper aggregation of cross-state wages; and (2) limited,

 interim programmatic guardrails to ensure a functional, accessible path for underpayment,

 cross-state wage, and timing disputes while this case proceeds. This relief is prospective

 injunction under Ex parte Young 1908. This motion is urgent because the harms are systemic,

 ongoing, and constitutional. Defendants’ policies and customs of no notice on core disputes,

 misrouting of appeals, oral-only ADA accommodations via an overburdened call center, and

 retaliatory “integrity” holds without transparent reasons all predictably injure Plaintiff and

 similarly situated claimants, causing irreparable harms resulting from economic instabilities.

 Absent relief, these defects will persist, evading federal review through procedural barriers

 condemned in Williams v. Reed 2025. As a pro se, indigent, disabled litigant Plaintiff faces

 significant barriers in formalizing exhibits; liberal construction is warranted. Plaintiff’s
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR             Document 55        filed 09/22/25      USDC Colorado         pg 2
                                              of 10

                                                                                                 2 of 10

 disabilities substantially impede his ability to secure and sustain employment, making him

 uniquely dependent on the lawful, accessible, and timely administration of public benefits. When

 payments are interrupted—even briefly—the resulting loss of subsistence income causes

 immediate, irreparable harm: threatened housing, disrupted medical care, and diminished

 capacity to search for work. These are not inconveniences remediable by later monetary awards;

 they are acute deprivations that compound with each day of delay. Emergency relief is therefore

 warranted to prevent further due-process and effective-communication violations and to ensure

 compliant, written, and timely adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim. The requested interim measures

 merely preserve the status quo required by law and align with the public interest in safeguarding

 vulnerable beneficiaries through orderly, non-arbitrary administration.


 1. Plaintiff filed a claim in March 2023. A determination issued in early April set a low weekly

 benefit after excluding wages earned in another state, creating an unresolved underpayment and

 timing errors. The agency’s notices and appeal structure provided no workable path to challenge

 that dispute: templated notices omitted the core issues, and appeals were funneled into

 non-remedial tracks or rejected on procedural grounds without reaching underpayment or timing.

 Plaintiff disclosed disabilities—including autism and oppositional defiance disorder—and

 requested effective, human-facilitated communication in writing; the agency maintained an

 oral-only accommodation pathway through a congested call center, offered no written portal or

 proactive coordinator outreach, and failed to engage in an interactive process. The lack of an

 accessible communication channel forced unsafe, in-person efforts during periods of heightened

 health risk and led to illness and lost work opportunities. In a later call, an agent falsely asserted

 Plaintiff’s bank was incompatible and conditioned processing on enrollment in a fee-bearing

 payment card; subsequent deposits to the same bank disproved that assertion and demonstrated
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 55        filed 09/22/25      USDC Colorado         pg 3
                                             of 10

                                                                                               3 of 10

 coercive vendor steering. Public reporting and prior litigation reflect that these are not isolated

 events but symptoms of broader systemic deficiencies in notice, routing, and access. Plaintiff

 now faces eviction risk, interruptions in medical care, and loss of subsistence income—harms

 that are immediate, ongoing, and irreparable, and that flow directly from the denial of

 constitutionally adequate notice, a functional appeal route, and ADA-compliant access.


 Plaintiff’s irreparable harms are documented in the administrative record and readily verifiable.

 The July 9, 2025, eviction notice threatens imminent housing loss, medical records confirm

 COVID-19 and conjunctivitis contracted from forced in-person visits in April 2023, and CDLE’s

 own claim records reflect the $6,000 underpayment due to excluded cross-state wages. As an

 indigent, disabled pro se litigant without PACER access, Plaintiff respectfully relies on the

 existing docketed record but can promptly lodge certified copies of these documents under seal,

 with redacted public versions, upon the Court’s request. These harms—eviction, medical

 disruption, and ongoing benefit denial—are immediate and irreparable, necessitating urgent

 relief.




 2. Defendants should be ordered, within ten days, to reprocess Plaintiff’s 2023 unemployment

 claim on constitutionally adequate terms. That requires issuing a new written determination that

 squarely addresses the underpayment dispute—including proper aggregation of out-of-state

 wages consistent with federal conformity and the “when due” mandate, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1). It

 also requires an ADA accommodation plan tailored to Plaintiff’s needs, including identification

 of an ADA coordinator, a reliable written communication channel (such as email or a secured

 web form), and, where needed, scheduled callbacks within forty-eight hours, together with a
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 55        filed 09/22/25     USDC Colorado          pg 4
                                             of 10

                                                                                              4 of 10

 documented interactive process. The agency should accept written submissions, conduct any

 necessary fact-finding by phone, video, or in writing, and allow reasonable response times. A

 status report filed within fourteen days should confirm the steps taken, dates completed, and the

 projected date for final administrative action. This relief is sought solely against Defendants in

 their official capacities under Ex parte Young (209 U.S. 123), targeting agency processes to

 ensure constitutional and statutory compliance without implicating individual liability.


 3. Pending adjudication on the merits, Plaintiff asks the Court to impose narrow, process-focused

 guardrails to prevent recurring procedural harms and ensure effective communication.

 Specifically: require the agency to publish a written ADA/§504 request pathway and identify an

 ADA coordinator; to acknowledge each accommodation request in writing within five business

 days with a clear determination, the accommodation to be provided, and a prompt route for

 clarification or appeal; to maintain written channels (email/secure portal/mail) and

 human-facilitated assistance rather than a phone-only pathway; to provide a functional route

 within existing appeals or magistrate processes for underpayment, cross-state wage, and timing

 disputes, including a catch-all category when an issue is not listed; to route misdirected appeals

 to the proper track rather than reject them; to toll deadlines where adequate notice did not issue

 and to run a standard forty-five-day appeal window from actual receipt of a compliant notice;

 and, when a claimant encounters a phone dead end, to provide a scheduled callback or written

 response within forty-eight hours by reallocating existing resources. As to Plaintiff, the agency

 should refrain from imposing or maintaining “integrity holds” absent particularized written

 reasons and an accessible cure path. These interim measures are narrowly tailored, preserve

 agency discretion, rest on existing capacity, directly address Plaintiff’s imminent housing and

 medical risks, and expire automatically upon final adjudication.
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 55        filed 09/22/25     USDC Colorado          pg 5
                                             of 10

                                                                                               5 of 10

 4. Given Plaintiff’s indigency and disability, and the strong public interest in constitutional

 compliance within a federally supported benefits program, the Court should waive the Rule 65(c)

 security requirement or set a nominal bond of one dollar. See, e.g., authority recognizing nominal

 or waived security where public-interest relief is sought by an indigent movant.


 5. This motion is distinct from prior filings dismissed on September 2, 2025, as it incorporates

 new evidence and ongoing harms not previously adjudicated. The July 9, 2025, eviction notice,

 March 15, 2025, ReliaCard coercion incident, and continued denial of ADA accommodations

 post-date the prior dismissal, constituting fresh injuries. Williams v. Reed (2025) further clarifies

 that no ongoing state proceeding bars federal review, and Plaintiff’s new allegations of systemic

 ADA and due process violations strengthen the case for emergency relief.


 Legal Standard

 A TRO/preliminary injunction requires: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable

 harm absent relief; (3) balance of equities favoring movant; and (4) public interest alignment.

 *Winter v. NRDC*, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the 10th Circuit, constitutional violations weigh

 heavily toward irreparable harm, and pro se filings receive liberal construction. *Elrod v. Burns*,

 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); *Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell*, 839 F.3d 1276,

 1281 (10th Cir. 2016); *Hall v. Bellmon*, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). No exhaustion

 or abstention applies, as no “ongoing state proceeding” exists under Williams v. Reed 2025, and

 §1983 claims require none. *Patsy v. Bd. of Regents*, 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982).



 Argument


 Individual Reprocessing (First Request)
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 55        filed 09/22/25     USDC Colorado          pg 6
                                             of 10

                                                                                               6 of 10


 1. Likelihood of Success


 Procedural Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment). The record shows two core defects: (1)

 non-notice on the actual dispute (underpayment/cross-state wages) and (2) misrouting that

 forecloses a hearing on that dispute. That design creates a high risk of erroneous deprivation,

 while the requested safeguards—issue-specific written determinations that present the real issue,

 and a functional route to raise it—are modest and highly probative of accuracy. Mathews v.

 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). UI procedures must be “reasonably calculated” to pay

 benefits when due; a system that never notices the real dispute and then rejects attempts to raise

 it is not. 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1); California Dep’t of H.R.D. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (1971).


 ADA/§ 504 (Effective Communication and Accommodation). Plaintiff disclosed disability and

 asked for human-facilitated, written/ coordinator-managed communication; the agency provided

 no written pathway, imposed an oral-only requirement through a congested call center, and failed

 to engage in an interactive process. That is a denial of effective access to a public program.

 Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531 (2004); Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1139 (9th

 Cir. 2001) (knowledge + failure to act → deliberate indifference). Plaintiff is likely to prevail on

 prospective ADA/§ 504 relief (and, at merits, § 504 economic damages upon proof of deliberate

 indifference).


 Prospective Posture. The requested order is reprocessing with accommodations and oversight. It

 does not award back pay; any fiscal effect is an incidental byproduct of lawful process. Ex parte

 Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159–60 (1908).


 2. Irreparable Harm
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR           Document 55        filed 09/22/25     USDC Colorado          pg 7
                                            of 10

                                                                                               7 of 10

 Loss of housing stability, subsistence income, and access to medicine are irreparable;

 constitutional injuries are likewise presumed irreparable. Each day without a compliant

 determination and accessible process compounds the harm. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373

 (1976); Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276, 1282 (10th Cir. 2016).


 3. Balance of Equities


 Plaintiff seeks process-only relief: an issue-specific written determination, ADA-compliant

 communication, and accessible fact-finding. These are administrative steps the agency can

 perform quickly; by contrast, Plaintiff faces imminent, concrete harms. The equities favor a

 narrowly tailored order.


 4. Public Interest


 Public interest strongly favors constitutional compliance in a federally supported benefits

 program—improving accuracy, preventing avoidable evictions and medical interruptions, and

 conserving public resources downstream. League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12

 (D.C. Cir. 2016).



 II. Interim Process Guardrails (Second Request)

 1. Likelihood of Success. The requested guardrails are modest procedural corrections that

 implement settled law. Requiring clear, issue-specific notices and a functional route to present

 the actual dispute gives effect to Mathews’ guarantees of adequate notice and a meaningful

 opportunity to be heard. Ensuring misfiled appeals are routed rather than rejected, tolling

 deadlines where notice was defective, and adopting a reasonable 45-day appeal window from
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR           Document 55        filed 09/22/25    USDC Colorado           pg 8
                                            of 10

                                                                                            8 of 10

 actual receipt makes the process “reasonably calculated” to deliver benefits when due under 42

 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1) and Java. Establishing a written ADA intake with coordinator

 acknowledgment and prompt timelines enforces effective-communication duties without

 dictating outcomes, consistent with Lane and Duvall.


 Because Defendants have acknowledged a phone-only bottleneck with insufficient callback

 capacity, a temporary requirement to reallocate existing resources to enable scheduled callbacks

 or written responses within a reasonable amount of time is a minimal, outcome-focused fix that

 enforces due process and ADA obligations without mandating hires or budget changes. These

 measures are narrow, prospective, and minimally burdensome they regulate process, not

 results—and are therefore likely to be upheld. (To the extent the Court addresses abstention sua

 sponte, these guardrails remedy the absence of any adequate ongoing proceeding and thus raise

 no Younger concern.)


 2. Irreparable Harm. Without guardrails, recurring defects cause predictable injuries across the

 claimant population: deadlines triggered by defective notices; rejection of misrouted appeals;

 lack of a written ADA channel and no callback capacity, particularly harming disabled claimants;

 and integrity holds without particularized reasons or a cure path. These conditions foreseeably

 produce irreparable losses of housing, income, and access to medicine for Plaintiff and similarly

 situated claimants. Process failures today cannot be repaired by after-the-fact damages tomorrow.


 3. Balance of Equities. The measures sought are light-touch and output-oriented: publish a

 written ADA intake with coordinator contact; route (not reject) misdirected appeals; add a simple

 catch-all category; toll deadlines where notice was inadequate; adopt a 45-day appeal window

 keyed to actual receipt; and, given Defendants’ own admissions, temporarily reallocate existing
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 55        filed 09/22/25      USDC Colorado           pg 9
                                             of 10

                                                                                               9 of 10

 staff or workflows to provide scheduled callbacks or written responses within 48 hours when

 claimants hit the phone dead end. The administrative burden is modest; the avoided harms are

 severe and immediate. The equities favor interim guardrails.


 4. Public Interest. Accessible, accurate UI adjudication serves the public by reducing error,

 preventing evictions, and maintaining continuity of care and work-search, while preserving

 agency discretion. Temporary guardrails—especially a written two-way channel and

 time-bounded responses—increase trust and compliance in a system affecting thousands of

 Coloradans and align state practice with federal due-process, ADA effective-communication, and

 “when due” standards.


 Narrow Tailoring and Duration. The guardrails are temporary, process-focused, and

 non-outcome-determinative. They specify outputs (clear notices, routing, tolled deadlines, a

 45-day window, a written ADA channel, and timely responses) while leaving means and staffing

 choices to Defendants. They preserve agency discretion and sunset upon final order or further

 direction of the Court, ensuring relief is no broader than necessary.



 Plaintiff is prepared to furnish, on the Court’s request or direction, the core materials already

 reflected in the administrative and docketed record relevant to emergency relief—namely,

 agency determinations and appeal records, disability disclosures and accommodation requests,

 agency communications practices (including phone-only/auto-reply policies), staffing/callback

 capacity declarations or audits, and current housing/eviction notices evidencing irreparable harm.

 To minimize duplication and burden, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to consider the existing

 record for TRO/PI purposes; if the Court prefers working sets, Plaintiff can promptly lodge true
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR           Document 55 filed 09/22/25            USDC Colorado         pg 10
                                            of 10

                                                                                             10 of 10

 and correct (and, where applicable, certified) copies. Upon the Court’s instruction, Plaintiff will

 also provide pinpoint record citations or any additional materials the Court designates.




                                                      ________________________________________

                                                               Date: 09-21-2025 | ❑Petitioner/Plaintiff

                                                                                 Joshua Abrams, Pro Se

                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE & AUTHENTICITY

 I certify the filings are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge done in good faith and
 under acknowledgement of perjury. & That on 09-21-2025 a true and accurate copy of this filing
 were served on Defendants by: E-filed, lauren.davison@coag.gov & Stephen.woolsey@coag.gov


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.239393.55.0.pdf

Size

196,663 bytes

SHA-256

6eee9c36a613ef060ff3870b0b71515951cd708ade7c770c0a0a196b2df43a53

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.239393.55.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)