need help

NEED HELP?

Find CCDC programs to help assist in advocating for you or someone you know with a disability.

LEARN MORE
ACTION ALERT

ACTION ALERT

Keep up to date with disability rights activities you care about. Choose a few topics or sign up for all of them!

LEARN MORE
issues

ISSUES

Find the most common issues people with disabilities face and how CCDC can help.

LEARN MORE

Conejos County Sheriff’s Office

title-line

Citation

CCDC v. Conejos County Sheriff’s Office, 2012cv17

Issues

CCDC sent a CORA request to the Sheriff on January 24, 2012, requesting any records the Sheriff has regarding providing sign language interpreters to inmates or arrestees who are deaf.  We then sent a Notice regarding the request.  

Status

At a hearing on May 16, 2012 the Sheriff provided responsive documents.  Judge Martinez ordered Plaintiffs to file a fee petition within 30 days of the hearing and if the parties could not agree, Defendant was to respond to the petition within 30 days.  The Sheriff did not file a response.  Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.  Just before the response date, the Conejos County Attorney entered an appearance and responded to both Plaintiffs motions for fees and costs and default judgment.  

On November 6, 2012, Plaintiffs moved for Summary Judgment. This document, the response, and reply are available below. On February 2, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and the parties have a status conference on March 11, 2013. 

The Court held a hearing on May 17, 2013 in Alamosa District Court.

On September 24, 2013, the Court issued an order determining that all of the records CCDC sought were subject to the CCJRA and not CORA. The Court further held that the fact that the Sheriff’s Office failed to respond to CCDC at all between when the request was recieved and the show cause hearing, constituted a denial of records. However, because the Sheriff testified that he had been actively looking for records during this time, the Court determined that the denial was not arbitary and capricous, and therefore CCDC was not entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

CCDC filed its Notice of Appeal on November 14, 2013.

On April 11, 2014, CCDC filed its opening brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals. CCDC argues that the District erred in determining that the records CCDC requested related the Sheriff’s Offices obligations under Title II of the ADA were subject to the CCJRA and not to CORA. CCDC also argues that the District Court erred in determining that the Sheriff’s conduct in failing to respond to CCDC for nearly months was not arbitrary and capricious. All Briefing has been completed. These documents are available on this website. We await the court’s decision.

Available Document


Media Coverage


    Important Notice
    CCDC’s employees and/or volunteers are NOT acting as your attorney. Responses you receive via electronic mail, phone, or in any other manner DO NOT create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC), or any employee of, or other person associated with, CCDC. The only way an attorney-client relationship is established is if you have a signed retainer agreement with one of the CCDC Legal Program attorneys.

    Information received from CCDC’s employees or volunteers, or from this site, should NOT be considered a substitute for the advice of a lawyer. www.ccdconline.org DOES NOT provide any legal advice, and you should consult with your own lawyer for legal advice. This website is a general service that provides information over the internet. The information contained on this site is general information and should not be construed as legal advice to be applied to any specific factual situation.

    A+ A-