Montez v. Romer, 1:92-cv-00870

Background

Claimant Keith A. Schwinaman was found to be a member of the diabetic subclass and that the Colorado DOC discriminated by denying access to glucose tablets necessary to manage hypoglycemia.
The Special Master’s Final Order required DOC to provide glucose tablets (or hard candy if determined safer) and permit Claimant to carry them while using the yard and other facilities.
The Special Master awarded $200 for emotional trauma arising from the discrimination.
Claimant filed an appeal/motion seeking additional accommodations (regular Tang beverage provision and storage, annual endocrinologist visits with adherence to recommendations, self-administration of insulin in staff presence), reimbursement for Tang purchases, $1,000 more in damages, and costs for copies and time spent preparing claims.
A compliance hearing found DOC had failed to provide tablets/candy but concluded the failure was not willful, rather due to staff misunderstanding.
The Court was asked to treat the appeal as additional damages claims, objections to the Special Master’s findings (including willfulness), a contempt request, and a motion for costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant may pursue new accommodations and reimbursement as additional damages during monitoring	Schwinaman sought reimbursement for Tang purchases and court-ordered ongoing Tang provision and other accommodations as damages/remedy	DOC opposed additional damages claims during monitoring; implementation should follow Remedial Plan	Denied — additional damages claims barred during the Monitoring Period under Article XXXII of the Remedial Plan
Whether the Special Master abused discretion in finding DOC’s noncompliance was not willful	Schwinaman argued staff were clearly aware of Final Order and noncompliance was willful, warranting contempt	Special Master concluded staff misunderstood obligations; DOC did not willfully disobey	Overruled — Court affirmed Special Master; no abuse of discretion shown
Whether contempt or additional monetary damages are appropriate for post-order noncompliance	Schwinaman sought contempt and $1,000 for further emotional trauma and verbal abuse	DOC argued non-willful noncompliance precludes contempt or extra damages	Denied — contempt inappropriate given non-willfulness; no additional damages awarded
Whether Claimant may recover litigation costs for copies and time preparing claims	Schwinaman requested reimbursement for copy costs and 75 hours of work	Remedial Plan limits recoverable damages to suffering from past discrimination; does not provide for claimant preparation costs	Denied — Plan does not authorize reimbursement for time or copying costs

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Regan, 627 F.3d 1348 (10th Cir. 2010) (defines abuse of discretion as arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable)
United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts defer to Special Master where multiple reasonable outcomes exist)