Gov. Jared Polis and the former director of the Colorado Department of Corrections are immune from an incarcerated man’s lawsuit for money damages over the state’s prison work program, the Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

John Patrick Fletcher, who resides at Buena Vista Correctional Facility, sought roughly $2 million from Polis and Dean Williams, who resigned as corrections director at the end of 2022. Fletcher’s claims relied on the theory that the state’s general requirement for inmates to perform labor is unconstitutional in the wake of a voter-enacted change to prohibit involuntary servitude in all instances.

More specifically, Fletcher argued Polis and Williams did not enjoy government employees’ broad immunity to liability because they lacked the constitutional authority to operate the prison labor program in the first place — meaning they were acting outside their roles as public officials.

A three-judge appellate panel found that argument unconvincing.

“Even if we were to assume that some aspects of the state’s inmate work program may be in tension with the Colorado Constitution’s ban on involuntary servitude,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove on March 21, “we nonetheless find it significant that the program is explicitly authorized — or, more precisely, mandated — by state statute.”

Colorado law requires those who are convicted and incarcerated to perform labor under regulations issued by the corrections department, with some exceptions. As an incentive, prisoners who participate will earn time credits and wages. According to a 2022 ACLU report, the pay in Colorado can be as low as 33 cents per hour.

A person’s refusal to perform work can result in the loss of earned time and privileges, housing restrictions, reprimands and extra assignments. Last year, 9News reported there were at least 727 instances since 2018 where prison officials “wrote up” prisoners for failing to work, but it was unclear what consequences they incurred.

Colorado’s prison labor program has come under scrutiny in recent years because in 2018, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to clarify that slavery and involuntary servitude are never permitted. Previously, the constitution, like its federal counterpart, did permit involuntary servitude “as a punishment for a crime.” Other states have followed Colorado’s lead and similarly changed their constitutions.

Currently, there is a class action lawsuit pending in Denver District Court against Polis and the corrections department alleging Colorado’s mandate that inmates perform labor now violates the state constitution. The plaintiffs are seeking to bar the state from the alleged use of involuntary servitude. With an estimated class of 14,000 people across 21 facilities, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have reported delays from the “voluminous discovery.”

Fletcher, representing himself, pursued a different trajectory in his lawsuit. Rather than ask a court to strike down the prison labor program on constitutional grounds, he attempted to sue Polis and Williams for money damages “as private citizens.”

He alleged in Denver District Court that their operation of the labor program without constitutional authorization made them personally liable for “human trafficking and involuntary servitude,” theft and money laundering.

Last year, Chief Judge Christopher J. Baumann dismissed the lawsuit. He suspected Fletcher was trying to sidestep the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which generally prevents public employees from being held liable for actions they take pursuant to their official duties. Baumann agreed the lawsuit was not one between “private citizens.”

“As such,” he wrote, “the Court finds the alleged misdeeds of Defendants concern actions taken in their official capacities as public employees and not as private citizens, and that the true aim of Plaintiff’s lawsuit is to restrain Defendants from implementing the Department’s inmate work program, which is mandated by Colorado law.”

On appeal, Fletcher reiterated his belief that Polis and Williams lacked “all legal authority” to compel his labor. Therefore, “there can be no official duty of office, falling within the scope of state employment, that can encompass obtaining involuntary servitude,” he wrote.

As did Baumann, the Court of Appeals believed the requirement in state law for a prison work program meant Polis and Williams did, in fact, have the authority to order Fletcher to work and could not be financially liable for carrying out that mandate.

“Indeed, if we were to accept his theory, then every challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute could be coupled with a claim for damages against the employee responsible for enforcing it. But we are not aware of any court that has endorsed that theory,” wrote Grove.

The case is Fletcher v. Polis et al.