Demand 02-2026 Unemployment

Summary

A pro se motion filed February 24, 2026 as Document 60 in Joshua Abrams v. Division of Unemployment Insurance, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff asks the court for an immediate ruling on his pending motion to amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (ECF No. 54, filed September 22, 2025), stating that more than five months have passed without a ruling. The motion states that the court dismissed the action on September 2, 2025 (ECF Nos. 50, 51) and argues that the dismissal order misapplied exhaustion doctrine, dismissed systemic due-process, ADA/§504 and First Amendment claims without analysis, and improperly dismissed claims with prejudice. It requests a ruling on ECF No. 54 and an immediate status conference, and ends with a certificate of service.

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 60        filed 02/24/26     USDC Colorado                   pg 1
                                             of 4

                                                                                                          1 of 4



   The United States District Court District of Colorado                           FILED
   901 19th St, Denver, CO 80294 | (303) 844-3433                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                             DENVER, COLORADO
   Plaintiff: Joshua Abrams                                                       1:35 pm, Feb 24, 2026

                                                                          JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
   v.
   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 MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RULING ON PENDING RULE
          59(e) MOTION DUE TO UNDUE DELAY, CLEAR LEGAL ERROR, AND
                                  MANIFEST INJUSTICE

 Plaintiff Joshua Abrams, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court for an immediate

 ruling on his pending Motion to Amend Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (ECF No. 54, filed

 September 22, 2025), together with the related Notice of Supplemental Authority and Motion for

 Status Conference filed in December 2025. More than five months have now passed with no

 ruling or scheduling order. This prolonged inaction constitutes undue delay that is causing

 ongoing irreparable harm to a disabled, indigent, self-represented litigant and thousands of

 similarly harmed Colorado citizens and is preventing Plaintiff from exercising his right to appeal.

 The Court's refusal to correct its own documented errors suggests an abdication of its role as an

 impartial arbiter. Avoiding a ruling on the merits to protect existing errors or the parties involved

 is a fundamental miscarriage of justice.


 I. BACKGROUND


 1, On September 2, 2025, the Court entered an order dismissing this action and final judgment

 (ECF Nos. 50, 51). Plaintiff timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion seeking vacatur on grounds of clear

 legal error and manifest injustice (ECF No. 54). That motion, along with the Notice of

 Supplemental Authority citing Williams v. Reed, 142 S. Ct. 1234 (2025), and the Motion for
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 60        filed 02/24/26     USDC Colorado            pg 2
                                             of 4

                                                                                                2 of 4

 Status Conference, remain undecided. The case has now been in this posture for more than five

 months. The delay is not attributable to any action or inaction by Plaintiff.


 II. THE COURT’S DISMISSAL ORDER CONTAINS CLEAR LEGAL ERRORS THAT THE

 PENDING 59(e) MOTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES


 The September 2, 2025 Dismissal Order rests on multiple clear errors that Plaintiff’s 59(e)

 motion and Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 53) squarely correct:


 2. Misapplication of Exhaustion and Abstention Doctrines . The Court dismissed the claims for

 failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. This ruling is directly contrary to controlling

 Supreme Court precedent in Williams v. Reed, 142 S. Ct. 1234 (2025), which holds that § 1983

 plaintiffs are not required to exhaust state remedies that are illusory or procedurally dead-ended.

 The record contains undisputed evidence (Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice filed on

 or about August 28, 2025) that the CDLE itself canceled Plaintiff’s appeal, rendering any further

 state process futile. The Court’s order never addressed this dispositive evidence.


 3. Treating Systemic Constitutional Violations as Mere Individual Benefits Disputes. Defendants

 deliberately failed to address the systemic due-process, ADA/§504, and First Amendment claims

 on the merits, framing the case as a simple individual dispute. The Court accepted that framing

 and dismissed the systemic claims without analysis. This was error. The Second Amended

 Complaint details the systemic policies (non-notice, appeal funneling, inaccessible systems,

 retaliatory integrity holds, ReliaCard coercion, insecure PII collection) that affect thousands of

 Colorado citizens, including Plaintiff.


 4. Improper “With Prejudice” Dismissal and Mooting of Curative Filings. The Court dismissed

 individual-capacity claims with prejudice and mooted Plaintiff’s motions to supplement and

 amend without merits review. The Second Amended Complaint cures every pleading deficiency
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR            Document 60        filed 02/24/26      USDC Colorado          pg 3
                                             of 4

                                                                                                 3 of 4

 identified. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave to amend must be freely given. Mooting the

 curative filings while simultaneously dismissing with prejudice was clear error.


 5. Failure to Apply Controlling Law and Record Evidence. The Court ignored Williams v. Reed

 (decided February 21, 2025) and the agency’s own cancellation letter (Exhibit B), both of which

 prove exhaustion was impossible. This failure to apply controlling Supreme Court precedent and

 undisputed record evidence is reversible error.


 III. THE COURT’S CONTINUED SILENCE CONSTITUTES UNDUE DELAY AND

 MANIFEST INJUSTICE


 6. More than five months of silence on a timely Rule 59(e) motion, combined with the mooting

 of evidence that directly refutes the dismissal grounds, constitutes manifest injustice. Plaintiff is

 a disabled, indigent, self-represented litigant who has already suffered eviction proceedings, loss

 of subsistence, and health deterioration caused by the very unconstitutional practices at issue.

 The Court’s refusal to rule is allowing the CDLE to continue depriving Plaintiff and similarly

 situated Colorado citizens of clearly owed benefits through the same illegal dead-end processes

 that the Supreme Court in Williams v. Reed has now unequivocally condemned. This delay is not

 neutral; it insulates the agency from accountability and perpetuates the very systemic violations

 the Court was asked to correct.


 7. The Court’s failure to rule or apply the law extends back to December 2023 more than 26

 months since originally filed constitutes an act of unconscionable cruelty that reduces the

 Plaintiff's plea for justice to an agonizing ordeal of continuous humiliation and physical

 deterioration. To prioritize procedural inertia over the urgent correction of manifest errors is an

 act of judicial cowardice that effectively imposes a bureaucratic death sentence on those already

 ruined by these systemic failures. Whether this refusal to manage its own docket stems from
Case No. 1:24-cv-03390-RMR           Document 60        filed 02/24/26     USDC Colorado          pg 4
                                            of 4

                                                                                               4 of 4

 profound incompetence or a willful intent to harm, it stands as a glaring betrayal of the judicial

 oath and definitively proves the Court's allegiance belongs to a destructive system rather than the

 vulnerable citizens it was sworn to protect.


 IV. RELIEF REQUESTED


 Plaintiff demands the Court:


 1. Issue a ruling on the pending Rule 59(e) motion (ECF No. 54);


 2. Set an immediate status conference to address the status of the pending motions and the record

 evidence that was mooted without review;


                                                     ________________________________________

                                                               Date: 02-24-2026 | ❑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 02-24-2026 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.239393.60.0.pdf

Size

225,019 bytes

SHA-256

f133b21e841ba5504a7fed57e56ad9f39c44f47c68962f364d2e0d83b9a59e65

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.239393.60.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)