Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you're in jail and have a serious illness like Hepatitis C. This case is about whether prison officials did enough to treat you. The court looked at whether they knew you were sick and in danger, and if they ignored that danger. In this instance, the court decided the officials did enough, so the prisoner's claim was not successful.

For Legal Practitioners

The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for prison officials, holding the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The key here is the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate the defendants' subjective knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk to his health, rather than merely objective evidence of a serious medical need. This reinforces the high bar for proving deliberate indifference, requiring more than just a showing of inadequate care.

For Law Students

This case tests the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, specifically regarding medical care in prisons. The Tenth Circuit's decision focuses on the 'deliberate indifference' standard, requiring proof that prison officials had subjective knowledge of a serious risk and disregarded it. This fits within the broader doctrine of prisoner rights and highlights the evidentiary challenges plaintiffs face in demonstrating the requisite mental state of officials.

Newsroom Summary

A Colorado prisoner's lawsuit claiming inadequate Hepatitis C treatment was rejected by the Tenth Circuit. The court found prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, meaning the prisoner did not prove they knew of and ignored a significant health risk. This ruling impacts how prisoners can sue over medical care claims.

Constitutional Issues

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (alleged deprivation of liberty without due process)Right to liberty as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

Rule Statements

"A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to good time credits; rather, such credits are a matter of legislative grace."

"The Due Process Clause does not require that a prisoner be afforded a hearing before the denial of good time credits."

Scenario: You are an inmate in a Colorado prison and have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C. You have informed prison staff about your condition and your concerns about its progression, but you feel the treatment provided is insufficient and not addressing your serious medical needs.

Your Rights: You have the right to adequate medical care while incarcerated, protected by the Eighth Amendment. This means prison officials cannot be deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.

What To Do: If you believe your serious medical needs are not being met, document all your requests for medical attention, the responses you receive, and the care provided. Keep copies of all medical records and communications. If your condition worsens and you believe officials are aware and ignoring the risk, you may consider consulting with an attorney specializing in prisoner rights to explore legal options.

Is it legal for prison officials to ignore a prisoner's serious medical condition like Hepatitis C?

No, it is not legal. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which includes 'deliberate indifference' to serious medical needs of prisoners. However, proving this deliberate indifference requires showing that the officials knew about the serious risk to the prisoner's health and consciously disregarded it, which can be difficult to prove, as seen in this case.

This ruling applies to the Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. However, the Eighth Amendment applies nationwide.

For Prisoners

This ruling makes it more difficult for prisoners to sue prison officials for inadequate medical care. Prisoners must now provide evidence that officials had subjective knowledge of a serious risk to their health and consciously chose to ignore it, rather than just showing that their medical needs were objectively serious.

For Prison Medical Staff and Administrators

This decision provides some protection for prison medical staff and administrators, as it reinforces the high standard required to prove deliberate indifference. They are not liable for every instance of inadequate care, but must have acted with a conscious disregard for a known, excessive risk to an inmate's health.

Q: What is Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) about?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) is a case decided by Colorado Supreme Court on October 27, 2025.

Q: What court decided Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) was decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, which is part of the CO state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) decided?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) was decided on October 27, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

The citation for Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the parties involved in Lanari v. Stancil?

The full case name is Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), et al. The plaintiff is Robert Lanari, a prisoner, and the defendants are various officials from the Colorado Department of Corrections, including Executive Director Moses Stancil, Manager August Bauby, Head of Clinical Services Michelle Brodeur, MPS Coordinator Nicole Allen, Warden Barry Goodrich, and Case Managers Eddie Tenorio and George Teneff.

Q: What court decided the case of Lanari v. Stancil and when was the decision issued?

The case of Lanari v. Stancil was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The opinion was issued on August 10, 2023.

Q: What was the primary legal claim made by Robert Lanari in his lawsuit?

Robert Lanari's primary legal claim was that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care for his Hepatitis C while he was incarcerated.

Q: What was the nature of the dispute between Robert Lanari and the Colorado Department of Corrections officials?

The dispute centered on whether the CDOC officials were deliberately indifferent to Robert Lanari's serious medical needs, specifically his Hepatitis C infection. Lanari alleged he did not receive proper medical treatment, while the defendants argued they provided appropriate care and were not deliberately indifferent.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the Tenth Circuit level?

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This means the appellate court agreed that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing Lanari's claim.

Q: Is Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) published?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) cover?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) covers the following legal topics: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, Prisoner's constitutional rights to medical care, Summary judgment standard in civil rights cases, Objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference.

Q: What was the ruling in Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF). Key holdings: The court held that to establish an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must show that the defendants had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and that they consciously disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner's health.; The court held that the plaintiff's subjective belief that he was not receiving adequate care, without more, does not establish deliberate indifference on the part of the prison officials.; The court held that the defendants' actions, including providing some treatment and consulting with medical professionals, did not demonstrate a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff.; The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendants were aware of the specific risks associated with his Hepatitis C and chose to ignore them.; The court held that the evidence presented did not support the claim that the defendants were aware of the plaintiff's condition and the potential for serious harm and acted with deliberate indifference..

Q: What precedent does Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) set?

Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that to establish an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must show that the defendants had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and that they consciously disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner's health. (2) The court held that the plaintiff's subjective belief that he was not receiving adequate care, without more, does not establish deliberate indifference on the part of the prison officials. (3) The court held that the defendants' actions, including providing some treatment and consulting with medical professionals, did not demonstrate a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. (4) The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendants were aware of the specific risks associated with his Hepatitis C and chose to ignore them. (5) The court held that the evidence presented did not support the claim that the defendants were aware of the plaintiff's condition and the potential for serious harm and acted with deliberate indifference.

Q: What are the key holdings in Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

1. The court held that to establish an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must show that the defendants had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and that they consciously disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner's health. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's subjective belief that he was not receiving adequate care, without more, does not establish deliberate indifference on the part of the prison officials. 3. The court held that the defendants' actions, including providing some treatment and consulting with medical professionals, did not demonstrate a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. 4. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendants were aware of the specific risks associated with his Hepatitis C and chose to ignore them. 5. The court held that the evidence presented did not support the claim that the defendants were aware of the plaintiff's condition and the potential for serious harm and acted with deliberate indifference.

Q: What cases are related to Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

Precedent cases cited or related to Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF): Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999).

Q: What constitutional amendment was at the heart of Robert Lanari's lawsuit?

The constitutional amendment at the heart of Robert Lanari's lawsuit was the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Lanari argued that the alleged failure to provide adequate medical care for his Hepatitis C constituted a violation of this amendment.

Q: What legal standard did the Tenth Circuit apply to determine if the Eighth Amendment was violated?

The Tenth Circuit applied the standard of 'deliberate indifference' to a serious medical need. To prove a violation, Lanari had to show that the defendants knew of Lanari's serious medical needs and disregarded an excessive risk to his health.

Q: What did the Tenth Circuit conclude regarding the defendants' knowledge of Lanari's medical condition?

The Tenth Circuit concluded that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that the defendants had actual knowledge of Lanari's serious medical needs and the excessive risk to his health. The court found that Lanari failed to show the defendants were aware of and disregarded such a risk.

Q: What does 'deliberate indifference' mean in the context of Eighth Amendment medical care claims?

Deliberate indifference means that a prison official must have actual knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate and disregard that risk. It is more than negligence or a difference of opinion regarding the best course of medical treatment; it requires a subjective awareness and intentional disregard.

Q: Did the court find that Hepatitis C is a 'serious medical need' under the Eighth Amendment?

While the court did not explicitly state Hepatitis C is always a serious medical need in its holding, the analysis implies that it can be, as the focus was on whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Lanari's condition. The court's decision hinged on the lack of evidence of deliberate indifference, not on whether Hepatitis C itself qualified as a serious need.

Q: What was the significance of the summary judgment ruling for Robert Lanari?

The grant of summary judgment meant that the district court, and subsequently the Tenth Circuit, found that based on the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could find in favor of Lanari. This prevented the case from going to a full trial because there were no genuine disputes of material fact regarding the defendants' alleged deliberate indifference.

Q: What kind of evidence would have been needed for Lanari to succeed in his claim?

For Lanari to succeed, he would have needed to present specific evidence showing that the defendants knew about his Hepatitis C, understood the risks associated with it, and then consciously disregarded those risks by failing to provide necessary medical care or treatment.

Q: What legal doctrines or principles were considered in this case?

The primary legal doctrine considered was the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, specifically as applied to the provision of medical care to incarcerated individuals. The court focused on the 'deliberate indifference' standard and the requirements for proving subjective awareness of risk by prison officials.

Q: What is the burden of proof in an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim?

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, in this case, Robert Lanari. He had to affirmatively demonstrate that the defendants possessed a subjective awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm to his health and consciously disregarded that risk. This is a higher burden than proving negligence or medical malpractice.

Q: Could Robert Lanari have pursued a different legal claim, such as negligence?

While Lanari could potentially have pursued a state-law negligence claim, his lawsuit was specifically brought under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The standard for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment is distinct from and generally more difficult to meet than the standard for negligence under state tort law.

Q: What specific evidence did the court find lacking to prove deliberate indifference?

The court found a lack of specific evidence showing that the defendants knew of Lanari's Hepatitis C, understood the excessive risk it posed to his health, and then disregarded that risk. The evidence did not establish that the defendants were aware of and ignored a substantial risk of harm to Lanari's health.

Q: How does the ruling in Lanari v. Stancil impact other prisoners with serious medical conditions in Colorado?

This ruling reinforces the high burden of proof prisoners face when alleging Eighth Amendment violations for inadequate medical care. Prisoners must demonstrate not just that their medical needs were serious, but that specific officials were aware of and deliberately indifferent to those needs, rather than merely negligent.

Q: What are the practical implications for prison medical staff following this decision?

Prison medical staff and administrators must ensure they have systems in place to identify serious medical needs and respond to them appropriately. While this case emphasizes the need to prove deliberate indifference, it does not excuse providing substandard care; documentation of assessments, diagnoses, and treatment plans remains crucial.

Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of the Lanari v. Stancil case?

Incarcerated individuals in Colorado who believe they are not receiving adequate medical care are most directly affected. The ruling sets a precedent for how such claims will be evaluated in the Tenth Circuit, requiring a strong showing of deliberate indifference from specific officials.

Q: Does this ruling mean that prison officials are free to ignore inmate medical issues?

No, the ruling does not grant prison officials immunity from liability for inadequate medical care. However, it clarifies that a claim under the Eighth Amendment requires proving 'deliberate indifference,' a high legal standard that involves showing the officials' subjective knowledge and disregard of a substantial risk of harm, not just negligence.

Q: What is the historical context for Eighth Amendment claims related to prison medical care?

Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding prison medical care evolved significantly following the Supreme Court's decision in Estelle v. Gamble (1976), which established that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Lanari v. Stancil is part of this ongoing line of cases interpreting and applying that standard.

Q: How does Lanari v. Stancil compare to other landmark Supreme Court cases on prisoner rights?

Lanari v. Stancil follows the precedent set by Supreme Court cases like Estelle v. Gamble and Farmer v. Brennan, which define the scope of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment concerning medical care. It applies the 'deliberate indifference' standard established in those cases to a specific set of facts.

Q: What was the docket number in Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF)?

The docket number for Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) is 25SC338. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Robert Bradley Lanari v. Moses 'Andre' Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC); August Bauby, Manager, Time/Release Operations (CDOC); Michelle Brodeur, Clinical Services, Head (CDOC); Nicole Allen, MPS Coordinator, Programs Education (CDOC); Barry Goodrich, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility (CCCF); Eddie Tenorio, Case Manager (CCCF); and George Teneff, Case Manager (CCCF) be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: What is the role of 'summary judgment' in the procedural history of this case?

Summary judgment is a procedural tool where a court can decide a case without a full trial if there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In Lanari v. Stancil, the defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing Lanari had not presented sufficient evidence to prove deliberate indifference, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Q: How did the case reach the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Tenth Circuit on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to the defendants. Robert Lanari, as the losing party in the district court, appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit, seeking to overturn the summary judgment.

Q: What does it mean for the Tenth Circuit to 'affirm' the district court's decision?

To affirm means that the appellate court reviewed the lower court's decision and found no errors of law or fact that would warrant overturning it. In this instance, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Lanari failed to present sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference.