Montez v. Hickenlooper
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9543
10th Cir.2011Background
- Colorado state prisoners filed a class action alleging ongoing disabilities rights violations under ADA, Rehab Act, and §1983.
- In 2003 the parties entered a Remedial Plan consent decree, creating a mechanism for individual damage claims adjudicated by a special master, with district court review.
- The decree stated class counsel need not represent individuals for their damage claims.
- Larry Gordon pursued an individual damage claim; the special master denied the claim for lack of a covered disability and lack of discrimination evidence.
- District court affirmed, and held Gordon’s medical-care grievances were not part of the Remedial Plan; Gordon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper under the consent decree | Gordon argues the decree permits appellate review of district court rulings on individual claims. | Defendants contend the decree expressly or by waiver limits appeals to the district court's rulings. | Appellate review is permitted absent a clear waiver. |
| Standard of review for jurisdictional questions | De novo review of the district court’s interpretation of the decree is proper. | Deference to factual findings in the district court’s ruling. | De novo review governs interpretation and jurisdictional questions. |
| Effect of consent decree on appellate rights | Decree lacks a clear, unequivocal waiver of appellate rights. | Mock v. T.G.&Y. Stores Co. supports waivers of appeal in consent decrees. | No clear waiver; appellate review available for the district court’s resolution of claims under the mechanism. |
| Collateral order doctrine applicability | Order denying damages is a collateral, immediately appealable issue. | Not final on all issues; appeal might be premature. | Collateral order doctrine applies; the appeal is appealable as a dispositive, separable order. |
| Timeliness under the prison mailbox rule | Gordon’s filing was timely via the prison’s legal mail system. | Mailbox-rule compliance requires Price v. Philpot prerequisites. | Timeliness satisfied; Price prerequisites not required since legal mail system used. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mock v. T.G.&Y. Stores Co., 971 F.2d 522 (10th Cir. 1992) (consent judgments generally waive objections within the scope)
- United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 905 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1990) (consent decree ambiguity on appellate waiver)
- MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2005) (waiver of appellate rights requires clear, unequivocal language)
- Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2001) (district court decisions involving arbitration reviewed like other judgments)
- Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003) (finality requirement for appeal of district court decisions)
- D&H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc respect for district court judgments in finality)
- Crystal Clear Communications, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 415 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2005) (collateral order doctrine elements met by finality and separateness)
- Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Scherer, 7 F.3d 191 (10th Cir. 1993) (interpretation of contracts and de novo review in jurisdictional questions)