District Court, D. Colorado — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
McMillan v. Wiley
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-09-14 · cited 10×
The case involved a federal prisoner at the ADX supermax facility in Colorado who brought Bivens claims against multiple Bureau of Prisons officials, alleging that his placement and conditions of confinement violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and involved a conspiracy to commit those violations. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss all claims, citing sovereign immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction over some defendants, failure to state viable constitutional claims, and qualified immunity, while the plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint to add claims and clarify allegations. The court addressed both motions together, granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims, and denied leave to amend, reasoning that the allegations did not establish a protected liberty interest, did not demonstrate unconstitutional conditions, and were barred by immunity doctrines or insufficient facts.
criminal lawcivil rights
Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In Re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.)
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-08-31
This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 11 case of Tracy Broadcasting Corporation, which operated a radio station under an FCC license. Valley Bank had loaned money to the debtor pre-petition and claimed a security interest in the debtor's general intangibles, including the right to compensation for any transfer of the FCC license. The bankruptcy court ruled that Valley Bank had no security interest in the license itself or in any proceeds from a post-petition transfer of the license under 11 U.S.C. § 552(a), because no contract for such a transfer existed at the time of the bankruptcy filing. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that § 552(a) prevents the security interest from attaching to post-petition proceeds absent a pre-petition agreement and required FCC approvals, which were not obtained. The court rejected arguments that the interest in general intangibles or UCC provisions could overcome these federal bankruptcy and FCC restrictions.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power
Doe v. Heil
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-06-23 · cited 510×
This case involves a prison inmate, classified as a sex offender, who filed a § 1983 civil rights action challenging Colorado Department of Corrections regulations that required admission of the offense and passage of a polygraph examination as conditions for participating in or reentering a sex offender treatment program needed for parole eligibility. The plaintiff raised facial, Fifth Amendment self-incrimination, and substantive due process claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the merits, holding that the Fifth Amendment claim failed under binding Tenth Circuit precedent because the policy did not constitute unconstitutional compulsion, that no protected liberty interest supported the due process claim, and that the policy did not shock the conscience. The court also denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to amend the dismissal order, finding no error in the prior analysis of Turner factors or related issues.
criminal lawcivil rights
Lopez v. Astrue
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-03-28 · cited 1×
This case involved a challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits to a plaintiff alleging impairments including chronic back pain, depression, anxiety, hypertension, and acid reflux, with an alleged onset date in 2006. The court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found the plaintiff not disabled at steps four and five after determining he could perform past work and other jobs despite limitations to light work with additional restrictions. The court decided to reverse the denial and remand for an immediate award of benefits rather than further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ failed to properly analyze and give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians, instead relying on an unsupported opinion from a non-medical single decision maker, and that the record fully established disability as a matter of law when the treating opinions were credited.
federal powerhealthcareprocedure
HealthONE of Denver, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-03-28 · cited 35×
This case involves HealthONE of Denver, Inc. and HCA-HealthONE LLC suing UnitedHealth Group Inc. for trademark infringement and related claims after United filed applications to register marks like "UNITEDHEALTHONE" for insurance and managed health care services. Plaintiffs alleged that these marks incorporated and were confusingly similar to their federally registered "HEALTHONE" marks used for hospital and healthcare services, leading to claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for deceptive trade practices and under Colorado common law for unfair competition via passing off. The court denied United's motion to dismiss those two claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It reasoned that the complaint plausibly alleged false representations about source and affiliation, as well as a likelihood of consumer confusion due to the marks' similarity, the parties' overlapping markets and channels of trade, and the related nature of their health services.
business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure
Salazar v. Astrue
District Court, D. Colorado · 2011-03-04 · cited 3×
The case involved review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits to a plaintiff who claimed he became disabled in 2001 due to back and neck problems from degenerative disc disease. The ALJ found the plaintiff disabled only as of November 2006, when he turned 50 and changed age categories, after determining he had the residual functional capacity for certain sedentary work and that jobs existed in significant numbers before that date. The court identified multiple errors, including improper weighting of treating physicians' opinions, failure to incorporate all impairments into the RFC, and lack of substantial evidence for the step-five job findings. It reversed the decision and remanded for an immediate award of benefits, finding the record established disability as a matter of law without need for further fact-finding.
labor & employment