Makeen v. State of Colorado, The et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 03/11/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03452-CMA-CBS
AKEEM MAKEEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
JANEL BRAVO,
CHARLA BRANHAM, and
ARAPAHOE COUNTY,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Reconsider
its Order Affirming United States Magistrate Judge Order, (Doc. # 38).” (Doc. # 41.)
Plaintiff argues that using Communication Access Realtime Translation (“CART”)
causes him to have seizures because of “over-response.” (Id. at 3.) Further, he
contends that he “need[s] a note taker instead of CART” because “by listening and then
being able to look over at the notes from time to time allows for my brain to put it
together so I can understand fully of what is being said.” (Id.)
CART is “an advanced and accurate translation method that uses a human
captioner assisted by computer-based captioning technology to transcribe spoken
dialogue word-for-word in written sentences.” Communication Access Realtime
Translation: CART Services for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People, DISABILITIES,

OPPORTUNITIES, INTERNETWORKING, AND TECHNOLOGY,
http://www.washington.edu/doit/videos/index.php?vid=57 (last visited March 11, 2015).
CART allows users to follow dialogue more efficiently and precisely. Id. Additionally,
CART providers are able to customize their services to accommodate each user’s
needs and preferences. Id. For instance, text font size, color, and display options can
be modified to accommodate a CART user’s preference. Id. In addition, upon approval,
a written log of the transcription can be sent to the user at the end of a CART session.
Id.
The Court finds that CART is a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s
communication disability. It will allow Plaintiff to listen to what is being said during the
court proceeding while being provided the text of the dialogue. In fact, CART is
arguable better than a note taker because CART is a quick and accurate translation of
the spoken dialogue; Plaintiff will be able to customize CART to accommodate his
needs and preferences; and Plaintiff could be given a written log of the transcription at
the conclusion of the court proceeding. Further, similar to a note taker, Plaintiff is able
to look over the transcribed text from time to time such that he fully understands what is
being said during the court proceeding. CART will allow Plaintiff “a fair and equal
opportunity to present this case to the court and be heard.” (Doc. # 41, 5.)
Accordingly, “Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Reconsider its Order Affirming
United States Magistrate Judge Order, (Doc. # 38)” (Doc. # 41) is DENIED.

2

DATED: March

11

, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3