Havens v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250

Darrell Havens, an incomplete quadriplegic, was housed in CDOC’s Special Medical Needs Unit (SMNU) at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) after Fort Lyons closed; DRDC provided the continuous medical care he needed but had fewer programs and no on-site law/recreational libraries.
SMNU inmates could access general-population facilities only when staff escorted them through security “sliders”; SMNU daily life included in-cell dining, a small day room, limited scheduled computer access, and some accommodations (full‑time aides, prison job, online/legal resources on request).
Havens sued CDOC under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking damages and injunctive relief; district court dismissed many claims and granted CDOC summary judgment, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the Title II damages claim and finding no intentional discrimination under § 504.
On appeal Havens argued Title II abrogates state sovereign immunity under United States v. Georgia and that CDOC acted with deliberate indifference under § 504; he died mid‑appeal and his sister (as personal representative) was substituted.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it declined to address Havens’s Title II‑abrogation argument because it was not raised below (forfeited/waived), and it affirmed dismissal of the § 504 damages claim for lack of evidence of deliberate indifference (intentional discrimination).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title II abrogates Colorado’s Eleventh Amendment immunity for Havens’s damages claim	Havens: Georgia allows Title II abrogation where conduct also violates Fourteenth Amendment; abrogation applies here	CDOC: Eleventh Amendment bars Title II damages; no valid abrogation pleaded below	Forfeited/waived on appeal; court declines to reach merits and affirms immunity bar
Whether § 504 permits compensatory damages absent intentional discrimination	Havens: CDOC’s placement of SMNU at DRDC and SMNU policies showed deliberate indifference to denial of meaningful access	CDOC: Provided accommodations (aides, job, limited computer/access, online/legal materials); no knowledge of substantial likelihood of harm	No deliberate indifference shown; § 504 damages claim fails
Whether Havens was denied meaningful access to programs/services	Havens: DRDC’s limited programs, late posting, segregation prevented meaningful access	CDOC: Havens completed multiple programs; had meaningful access with accommodations	Court treats meaningful access as present; factual record supports access and undermines an obvious substantial risk
Whether intent is inappropriate for summary judgment	Havens: intent is a jury question not suited to summary judgment	CDOC: record lacks evidence to create a triable dispute on deliberate indifference	Court: intent can be resolved on summary judgment where record lacks evidence; affirms summary judgment for CDOC

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II may abrogate state sovereign immunity for conduct that also violates Fourteenth Amendment)
Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2009) (compensatory damages under § 504 require proof of intentional discrimination; deliberate indifference standard applies)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; courts defer to prison administration)
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (Rehabilitation Act ensures meaningful access; reasonable accommodation may be required)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment limits federal-court power over claims against states)