A federal judge on Thursday concluded he did not have the authority to intervene as Colorado performed an “administrative intercept” of the $3.5 million a jury awarded a plaintiff more than a year ago for violations of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews acknowledged there might be a narrow path for plaintiff Jason Brooks to ask him to enforce the payment, but Crews otherwise found no precedent allowed him to reopen Brooks’ long-running lawsuit to address the state’s allegedly improper diversion of his award.

Brooks even admitted his request rested on shaky grounds in a letter to the judge late last month.

“While your power over this matter is somewhat limited, the Defendants cannot be permitted to steal this judgment and prevent any pre-deprivation due process afforded me through the constitution,” he wrote.

Brooks was incarcerated in the Colorado Department of Corrections after pleading guilty to multiple counts of securities fraud in 2010. Brooks suffered from ulcerative colitis that required him to use the bathroom upwards of 15 times per day. While imprisoned, he sought a reasonable accommodation for his disability under the ADA, in the form of being able to go to the cafeteria at the first opportunity so he could consistently plan his bathroom breaks.

Instead, the department offered him an adult diaper. As a result, jurors heard evidence that Brooks missed “thousands of meals” between 2012 and 2018 to deal with his incontinence around meal times, in addition to experiencing “stabbing pain” and defecating on himself.

Jurors awarded him $3.5 million in late 2022, nine years after Brooks first filed suit. Last month, Crews rejected the government’s challenge to the award.

However, the parties reappeared in Crews’ courtroom after Brooks filed an emergency motion to address his payment being “intercepted” by the state. Brooks’ attorney elaborated that his client’s underlying criminal case carried a $5.1 million restitution order to his victims, but it was improper for the 19th Judicial District in Weld County to unilaterally stake a claim to the jury award.

“I’m not so sure that this case, that is now closed, continues to exist for purposes of giving me jurisdiction to be involved in all of the collection efforts that Mr. Brooks might want to avail himself of,” Crews responded.

Kevin D. Homiak, a lawyer representing Brooks, argued the fact that Brooks’ jury award stemmed from violations of the ADA, a federal law, provided Crews with a “hook” to get involved again.

“I understand this is a novel hearing,” Homiak conceded.

“It’s a novel theory for which you have not cited anything to me that suggests there’s support for the theory,” Crews interjected.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office clarified that the state issued a check for Brooks’ jury award on March 26. Almost immediately, the 19th Judicial District “administratively intercepted” the payment to satisfy his 14-year-old crime victim restitution obligation.

“The 19th Judicial District, being the arm of the State of Colorado to which Mr. Brooks’s debt is owed, is authorized to collect restitution,” wrote Assistant Deputy Attorney General Andrew M. Williams, representing the corrections department.

A spokesperson for Colorado’s judicial branch declined to provide comment on behalf of the 19th Judicial District due to the ongoing dispute.

“Should Mr. Brooks seek a remedy in this case,” Williams told Crews at the April 4 hearing, “it is appropriate in state court under state statutes.”

Crews acknowledged a Colorado law gives anyone whose property is affected by a “spurious document” the ability to file a petition for review in federal court. However, Crews pointed to a 2016 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which found state law cannot be the source of a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Consequently, Crews declined Brooks’ request to intervene. He left the door open for Brooks to file a separate motion asking him to enforce the monetary judgment, which would trigger another round of arguments.

The case is Brooks v. Colorado Department of Corrections.