A federal judge has agreed an incarcerated man can sue a prison employee for causing him to miss his deadline for filing a longshot challenge to his convictions with the U.S. Supreme Court, after the employee allegedly closed the facility’s library the day the petition was due.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney refused to dismiss the claim against Yvette Brown, a legal assistant at Fremont Correctional Facility, who allegedly denied “meaningful access to the courts” to inmate Bernard Jones.

Jones is serving a lengthy prison sentence on a pair of sexual assault and drug convictions from 1997 in El Paso County. He unsuccessfully appealed his convictions in state court, then filed a new challenge alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Once again, Colorado’s judiciary declined to provide him relief.

Jones then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, an avenue available when a conviction violates federal law. A trial judge concluded the state courts had reasonably denied Jones’ ineffective assistance claims, a ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld in late 2018.

Finally, Jones sought to appeal to the Supreme Court. He allegedly filed a petition with the court in March 2019, but the court notified him of several deficiencies. It gave him until May 16 to submit a corrected appeal.

Jones was reportedly allowed to use the law library for, at most, two-hour sessions at a time. He wrote the Supreme Court’s deadline on his library request forms to alert Brown. However, Brown allegedly threw up roadblocks to Jones’ efforts to complete his petition by failing to assist him in preparing legal documents and giving him false information about the availability of resources.

On May 15, one day before Jones’ petition was due to the nation’s highest court, Brown allegedly closed the library early, but indicated Jones could complete his petition the next day. Yet she “refused to open the Law Library at all” on May 16, causing Jones to miss his appeal deadline to the Supreme Court.

Representing himself, Jones then then sued Brown for denying him access to the courts. Jones simultaneously advanced a separate claim against Brown and employee Kristi Moore for allegedly conspiring to transfer him to another facility in retaliation for his complaints about Brown.

In December, U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak analyzed Jones’ allegations and Brown’s motion to dismiss the court access claim against her. Varholak agreed with Brown that some of Jones’ allegations did not amount to legal violations. For example, Jones was not entitled to Brown’s assistance, nor was the two-hour limitation on library use an apparent hindrance to his appeal.

However, the magistrate judge believed Brown’s alleged closure of the library on the day Jones’ petition was due and the prior day – crippling Jones’ opportunity to have the Supreme Court consider his case – was a credible claim of denied access. He recommended denying Brown’s motion to dismiss.

“Defendant Brown denied Plaintiff access to the law library the day the petition was due, despite knowing that the petition was unfinished and saved on a computer inside the law library, thereby prohibiting Plaintiff from filing the petition,” Varholak wrote. “And while it is true that Plaintiff may have had sufficient time – including time in the law library – to have completed his petition prior to the May 16 deadline, nobody informed him that he would need to complete it early or that the law library would be closed on May 16.”

Brown objected to Vaholak’s recommendation. She insisted Jones had “substantial access” to the library, spending 78 hours there during March and April 2019. Consequently, he had “more than enough time” to complete his petition before the deadline.

Sweeney, the district judge, was unconvinced. In a Feb. 16 order, she upheld Varholak’s recommendation. Since then, pro bono attorneys have begun representing Jones in his civil lawsuit.

The case is Jones v. Brown et al.