by Chuck Sharman

On February 17, 2026, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) agreed to pay former prisoner Tajuddin Ashaheed a total of $245,000 to settle his religious discrimination claims against Sgt. Derrick D. Porcher, a former guard at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center (DRDC) accused of forcing Ashaheed to shave the beard he kept in adherence to his Muslim faith. It was the second settlement that DOC reached over Porcher’s alleged religious discrimination; an earlier agreement for an undisclosed amount settled similar claims by a Jewish former prisoner, Kristopher Hancock, in December 2021.

Ashaheed’s case dated back to his arrival at the DRDC in July 2016 to serve a 90-day term for a parole violation. Porcher, who was on guard duty at the time, took issue with the prisoner’s beard and ordered it shaved off, according to the complaint Ashaheed later filed. Ashaheed objected that he was maintaining the beard for religious purposes, exempting it from the prison’s ban on facial hair. But Porcher told him his beard was too short to “qualify” for the exemption. “That’s not how Muslims grow their beard,” the guard declared, and he threatened to toss Ashaheed in the “hole”—solitary confinement. At that point, the prisoner acquiesced and submitted to shaving, which left him “beardless” and “feeling dehumanized, humiliated, his faith having been disrespected.”

With the aid of attorney David A. Lane of Kilmer Lane LLP in Denver, Ashaheed filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in December 2017. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he accused the guard of violating his First Amendment religious rights, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. ch. 21C § 2000cc et seq. However, the suit made the accusations not against Porcher but fellow guard Thomas E. Currington; it seems that when Ashaheed demanded to see photos of the guards on duty that day, in preparation to name the one who violated his rights, he was shown only those guards typically assigned to intake—and Porcher was typically assigned to the laundry.

So the prisoner unwittingly pressed his case against the wrong guard, and DOC attorneys didn’t correct the error. Instead, claiming qualified immunity (QI) for the guard, they moved for dismissal. The district court granted that motion in May 2020. Ashaheed timely turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where Lane was joined by attorney David M. Shapiro of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center in Chicago. They argued that Defendant was not entitled to QI because the rights at question were clearly established at the time. The Tenth Circuit agreed, vacating the district court’s ruling on August 10, 2021. See: Ashaheed v. Currington, 7 F.4th 1236 (10th Cir. 2021).

Mistaken ID Becomes an Issue

Back at the district court, the case proceeded toward a pretrial conference which was abruptly canceled in January 2023, when Ashaheed belatedly learned that he had misidentified the Defendant. He moved to amend his complaint, and Currington opposed him. Noting that it “is unusual when the Defendant resists dismissal,” the district court allowed amendment, not least because Ashaheed had asked for the identities of all guards on duty that day, and the DOC had provided only the names and photos of those who were both on duty and regularly assigned to intake—omitting Porcher, who usually worked the laundry. Currington was then dismissed from the case in favor of Porcher in May 2023.

Porcher, now forced to defend his conduct, blamed it on “negligence or mistake,” claiming that he lacked the requisite animus to rise to religious discrimination. However, the district court rejected this argument. Noting that Ashaheed had alleged sufficient facts which, if proved, sustained a claim that Porcher violated his right to free exercise of his religion, the district court denied the motion to dismiss on July 17, 2025. See: Ashaheed v. Porcher, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136727 (D. Colo.).

That was apparently sufficient to get the DOC to the negotiating table, where the parties proceeded to reach their settlement agreement. Under its terms, the $245,000 payout to Ashaheed, who by then had been released from the DOC, included costs and fees for his attorneys, including Lane and co-counsel Madison L. Schaefer, as well as attorney Mandarin A. Bowers of her eponymous Denver firm. See: Ashaheed v. Porcher, USDC (D. Colo.), Case No. 1:17-cv-03002.

Another Case Against
the Same Guard Settled

By that point, the DOC had also reached an undisclosed settlement with another former prisoner, Kristopher Hancock, who accused Porcher of violating his rights as a practicing Jew when the guard refused to give him the necessary form to declare his preference for a Kosher diet upon arrival at the DRDC in 2017. After Hancock filed suit pro se, the district court adopted a magistrate’s report and recommendation largely denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss on December 14, 2018. See: Hancock v. Cirbo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212319 (D. Colo.).

Importantly, Hancock also accused Porcher of forcibly shaving his head, in violation of his religious beliefs. It was also a violation of DOC policy, but that did not make the right “clearly established,” the district court said; only a judicial ruling could do that. So Porcher was granted QI on that claim. But that very denial also made the right “clearly established” going forward, so when Porcher did the same thing to Ashaheed, his QI claim was denied. As for Hancock’s claims, the DOC agreed to settle those after defeating the prisoner’s bid to amend his complaint, a motion that the district court denied on April 4, 2019. See: Hancock v. Cirbo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57882 (D. Colo.).

Since then, Hancock has gotten involved with Peer Connect, a nonprofit providing coaching and support to the homeless, according to an August 2024 profile in the Colorado Springs Gazette. Porcher apparently left the DOC and has worked as a deputy for the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office since 2021, according to payroll records reported to the state.

Ashaheed Wins
Over-Detention Claim

After an argument with his ex-girlfriend in 2025, Ashaheed posted a selfie online with a bullet between his teeth. That earned him a misdemeanor conviction under Aurora’s new municipal ordinance criminalizing veiled threats as domestic violence. He was sentenced to the maximum 364 days in jail. Except that state law caps misdemeanor sentences much lower.

So Ashaheed argued that he was being illegally detained. In support, he cited a ruling by the state Supreme Court that held such discrepancies must be resolved in favor of the state’s penalties, and that city ordinances imposing higher penalties are invalid. See: People v. Camp, 2025 CO 64.The Aurora Municipal Court agreed and ordered Ashaheed released on June 8, 2026. By that time, KMGH in Denver reported, he had served 229 days for a crime whose sentence the state caps at 120 days.  

Additional sources: Colorado Springs Gazette, KMGH

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login