Atif Saleem Madyun

Attorney Pro Se
3 P Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ATIF SALEEM MADYUN,

Plaintiff Case No.______________________

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

directly responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.

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

responsible for the wrongful actions alleged herein.

8. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (3); 42 U.S.C. 1983.

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

treatment regiment, negatively compromising his 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

plaintiff benefits from defendant Jeff Webster.

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

without their presence.

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

the plaintiff benefits was discriminatory.

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

been violated and he is entitled to punitive damages.

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

pretenses and classified plaintiff as “institutionalized”.

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

final ruling without the presence of the plaintiff or the attorney.

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

institutions of confinement violating further plaintiff liberty rights to parole.

D. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

20. Plaintiff has not filed any other law suited in state or federal court dealing with the same facts

involved in this action.

21. Plaintiff has sought informal or formal relief thru the fair hearing and grievance process but had

failed to receive relief.

E. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a) Trial by Jury

b) That counsel be appointed to represent the plaintiff in this action

c) Plaintiff's benefits from the date of application be awarded.

d) Defendants be appropriately sanctioned and fined

e) Punitive damages in the amount of; 750,[Link]

f) Grant attorney fees and court costs for this action.

g) Such other and further relief the court deems just and proper.

DATED this ________ day of ______________________, 2008

_____________________________________
Atif Saleem Madyun
Plaintiff