Decoteau et al v. Raemisch et al
ORDER re: 115 Requiring Parties to Supplement Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Court continues to RESERVE RULING on Plaintiffs' 115 Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Fairness Hearing. On or bef ore December 2, 2015, the parties shall file an addendum to the proposed settlement agreement [115-1] specifying the process bywhich: (a) notice will be delivered to current class members, and (b) the parties will ensure that notice is delivered to inmates who enter RHM, MCU, or CCTU sometime after the original notices are delivered, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/16/2015. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-3399-WJM-KMT
ANTHONY GOMEZ, and
RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Corrections, and
TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the Warden of the Colorado State
Penitentiary and Centennial Correctional Facility,
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR
This class action lawsuit challenges certain policies of the Colorado Department
of Corrections (“CDOC”). (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that CDOC’s policy
of denying outdoor exercise to certain inmates at the Colorado State Penitentiary
(“CSP”) is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See generally id.) This Court certified
a class (the “Class”) that, after certain amendments, is currently defined as follows: “All
inmates who are now or will in the future be housed at the Colorado State Penitentiary
and who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and practice of refusing
to provide such inmates access to outdoor exercise.” (ECF No. 93.)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement and for Fairness Hearing (“Motion”). (ECF No. 115.) Among
the issues this Court must consider when determining whether to grant preliminary
approval is whether the parties have developed an adequate plan to provide notice to
class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1).
Currently, the parties’ proposed settlement agreement (“Agreement”) states only
that they “will cooperate on a plan to provide the Notice to Class members.” (ECF No.
115-1 § VIII.B.) Plaintiffs’ Motion goes further, stating that “Plaintiffs propose to mail”
the two notices contemplated by the Agreement. (ECF No. 115 at 13.) But, as worded,
this appears to be nothing more than Plaintiffs’ proposal, and not something to which
Defendants have agreed.
Moreover, the Agreement does not specify how the parties will ensure notice to
future class members. (See ECF No. 93 at 7 (defining the class to include both current
and “future” inmates).) Specifically, the Agreement does not specify how the parties will
ensure notice to inmates who enter RHM, MCU, or CCTU sometime after the original
notices are delivered. The Court is additionally concerned with how to handle notice to
inmates who are placed in one of these statuses for only a short time, if any, such as an
inmate moved from the general population to RHM during an investigation of a
The Court will require an addendum to the Agreement to resolve these concerns.
Because the Agreement specifically contemplates the parties working out a notice plan
later, the Court will consider an addendum signed by the parties’ attorneys alone as
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
The Court continues to RESERVE RULING on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Fairness Hearing (ECF
No. 115); and
On or before December 2, 2015, the parties shall file an addendum to the
proposed settlement agreement (ECF No. 115-1) specifying the process by
which: (a) notice will be delivered to current class members, and (b) the parties
will ensure that notice is delivered to inmates who enter RHM, MCU, or CCTU
sometime after the original notices are delivered.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?