Attorney Pro Se
3 P Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024
V.
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND
KRISTEN COX, Executive Director DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Department of Workforce Services,
Individually;
DOUG JENSON, Administrative Judge
Department of Workforce Services,
Individually;
JEFF WEBSTER, Program Specialist
Department of Workforce Services,
Individually;
GREG WHITTIKER, Supervisor
Department of Workforce Services,
Individually;
KIM REYBURN, Services Specialist
Department of Workforce Services
Individually;
TOM PATTERSON, Executive Director
Department of Corrections,
Individually
Defendants
JURISDICTION
1. Atif Saleem Madyun, is a citizen of Washington, DC, who presently resides at the 3 P Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20024.
2. Defendant Kristen Cox is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as the Executive Director for the
Department of Workforce Services. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this
defendant was acting under color of state law in that she is an employee for the Department of Workforce
Services and is directly responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.
3. Defendant Doug Jenson, is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as an Administrative Judge for the
Department of Workforce Services. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this
defendant was acting under color of state law in that he is an employee for the Department of Workforce
Services and is directly responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.
4. Defendant Jeff Webster, is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as a Program Specialist for the
Department of Workforce Services. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this
defendant was acting under color of state law in that he is an employee for the Department of Workforce
Services and is directly responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.
5. Defendant Greg Whittiker is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as a Supervisor for the Department
of Workforce Services. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this defendant was acting
under color of state law in that he is an employee for the Department of Workforce Services and is
6. Defendant Kim Reyburn, is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as a Services Specialist for the
Department of Workforce Services. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this
defendant was acting under color of state law in that she is an employee for the Department of Workforce
Services and is directly responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.
7. Defendant Tom Patterson, is a citizen of Utah, and is employed as the Executive Director for the
Department of Corrections. At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, this defendant was
acting under color of state law in that she is an employee for the Department of Corrections and is directly
B. NATURE OF CAUSE
9. Petitioner complains that the Defendants discriminated against plaintiff because of his race, and/or
religion, and/or disability, and/or citizenship of Utah as a parolee and violated his liberty rights when they
denied the plaintiff medical and financial benefits as well as housing him in a public institution upon his
parole. As a result, the plaintiff was unable to meet his required physical and mental medical health
Department of Workforce Services interim disability benefits, General Assistance (GA) on the grounds
that the plaintiff’s housing situation, living in a Utah Department of Corrections Transition Center was a
non-qualifying residence and therefore plaintiff was “institutionalized” and in Utah State custody and/or
confinement.
11. Plaintiff immediately filed for an appeal of that decision. Plaintiff also submitted a grievance and
written complaint of the denial to both Kristen Cox and Tom Patterson and neither person or office
responded. Moreover, a final decision of the appeal was never supplied to plaintiff.
12. During a meeting with defendant Greg Whittiker, the plaintiff explained that he was on parole and
not institutionalized or in custody. Defendant Greg Whittiker sought further confirmation to deny the
13. On February 23, 2009 plaintiff attended a hearing with defendant Department of Workforce
Services Administrative Law Judge Doug Jenson. After learning that DWS failed to provide plaintiff’s
attorney with supplied materials for full disclosure, defendant Jenson ordered the plaintiff to re-apply for
the benefits and ordered that the hearing be re-scheduled for a continuance. When plaintiff and attorney
Bulson called to reschedule the hearing, the Defendant Jenson indicated that his ruling had been made
14. It was later reported to defendants Doug Jensen and Greg Whittiker in a written letter from
Department of Corrections Supervisor Shannon Cox, that plaintiff was not in custody, in confinement,
institutionalized or court ordered to live at his housing location. Despite the letter the defendants
continued to deny plaintiff benefits. Therefore it is in the realm of probabilities that the decision to deny
15. After conducting research the plaintiff’s legal aid attorney Mike Bulson, also concluded that there
were no reason that the plaintiff should be denied unless it was discriminatory or the plaintiff was in fact
in custody or institutionalized.
16. The DWS denial and classification of the transitions centers as institutions and the residents as
institutionalized then raises the issue that DOC is violating the liberty rights of parolees by forcing them
to be housed it its transition centers preventing them availability to state and federal programs.
17. On November 18, 2008 the plaintiff was paroled from the Utah State Prison after having his
original parole date of November 4, 2008 rescinded by the Department of Corrections because of lack of
bed space at their Community Correctional Centers (CCC). Plaintiff obtained residence at the
Department of Corrections Fremont Community Correctional Center for transition services. Moreover,
because the CCC’s are housing Parolees, in no way are these centers to be considered confinement
facilities. Yet, despite any opposition from the Department of Corrections, Utah State agencies define the
centers as public institutions of confinement, violated the Utah State Code; 76-8-309 Section 7(a)(b).
18. Due to the actions of the defendants, the plaintiffs civil and due process rights and liberties have
C. CAUSE OF ACTION
19. Plaintiff alleges that the following constitutional rights, privileges or immunities have been
violated and that the following facts for the basis for the allegations:
1. Count I: Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and the rights not to be
deprived of liberties or equal protection of the law have been violated by the defendants actions; in that
they discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of race, and/or religion, and/or disability, and/or
sexual orientation, and/or gender when the defendants denied plaintiff disability benefits under false
2. Count II: Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of laws have been
violated by the defendants; when they did not answer grievances and letters sent my the plaintiff.
3. Count III: Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of laws and
not be deprived of liberties or equal protection of the law have been violated by the defendants actions; in
that he failed to provide plaintiff’s attorney time to received material needed for the case before making a
be free from cruel and unusual punishment and not be deprived of privileges, immunities or liberty have
been violated by the defendant Tom Anderson when he rescinded the plaintiff original parole date
because his agency did not have bed space in their transition centers which are considered to be public
20. Plaintiff has not filed any other law suited in state or federal court dealing with the same facts
21. Plaintiff has sought informal or formal relief thru the fair hearing and grievance process but had
a) Trial by Jury
g) Such other and further relief the court deems just and proper.
_____________________________________
Atif Saleem Madyun
Plaintiff