Although the federal appeals court based in Denver declined on Tuesday to revisit its prior ruling making it easier for prison officials to defeat lawsuits from incarcerated plaintiffs, it corrected a seeming oversight and overturned a judge’s order that both sides took issue with.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded an incarcerated man’s 7-year-old lawsuit alleging constitutional violations was moot because federal prison officials had moved him out of Colorado to a different facility. Lawyers for plaintiff Michael Bacote Jr. subsequently filed a motion requesting a rare all-judges hearing, seeking to overturn what they characterized as a significant blow to prisoners’ rights.

Specifically, they criticized the appellate panel’s actions and warned the decision would enable prison officials to repeatedly transfer inmates, moot meritorious legal claims and force plaintiffs to refile lawsuits in new courts.

“This results in a never-ending pursuit of the plaintiff’s day in court, oscillating between dismissal and refiling, all at the expense of courts’ and plaintiffs’ own resources. As such, the panel’s decision renders adjudication on the merits in injunctive and, more particularly, prison conditions cases, increasingly unlikely,” wrote Bacote’s attorneys, including law students at the University of Denver’s Civil Rights Clinic.

On Oct. 15, the 10th Circuit reissued its decision, noting that none of the judges elected to initiate the process for whole-court review of the case. However, the panel agreed to make one modification: It vacated the trial judge’s underlying decision.

In his lawsuit, Bacote alleged his “extreme isolation” at the highly secure U.S. Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment given his mental condition. Although there was no ultimate dispute between the parties about the existence of Bacote’s mental illness and intellectual disability, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore determined, in part, that Bacote could not sue the Bureau of Prisons for relief under federal disability rights law.

Bacote’s lawyers argued on appeal that Moore misinterpreted the law at issue, the Rehabilitation Act, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not defend Moore’s reasoning to the 10th Circuit. Following the decision, Bacote argued that if the entire court was not going to rehear the case, the panel should at least vacate Moore’s order.

Apart from being standard protocol, Bacote’s attorneys elaborated that Moore’s nonbinding decision could influence other judges to incorrectly believe plaintiffs have no right to sue federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act.

Moore’s order “should not be allowed to spawn legal consequences in the District of Colorado. Left intact, the district court’s decision could have significant consequences beyond this case, preventing any individual with a disability seeking prospective relief from bringing suit against any federal executive agency,” they argued.

Without elaboration, the panel amended its decision to not only dismiss Bacote’s appeal, but to overturn Moore’s original decision.

The case is Bacote v. Federal Bureau of Prisons.