Kent Lasnik Lawsuit

8/20/2019 Kent Lasnik Lawsuit

1/22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 15-cv-02662

KENT LASNIK, an Individual

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER MARK MAGNESS, in his individual capacity;OFFICER DAVID ROMERO, in his individual capacity; and

CHIEF KARL WILMES, in his official capacity,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

______________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Kent Lasnik (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Lasnik”), by and through his attorneys Qusair

Mohamedbhai, Siddhartha H. Rathod, and Matthew J. Cron, of R ATHOD ǀ MOHAMEDBHAI LLC.,

brings the following Complaint and Jury Demand, and in support alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 6, 2014, Senior Patrol Officer David Romero of the Federal Heights Police

Department (“FHPD”) witnessed the assault and torture of Kent Lasnik, then a 48-year old man

in his custody. Officer Romero watched as fellow FHPD officer Corporal Mark Magness

dragged Mr. Lasnik from a police car head-first onto the concrete floor, shoved his face into the

corner of a refrigerator, beat him mercilessly in a holding cell, hurled him into a restraint chair,

and tortured him with painful pressure point holds for the sole purpose of causing pain and

Case 1:15-cv-02662 Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22


2/22

2

otherwise inflicting unlawful abuse. All the while, Cpl. Magness screamed profanities and

threats, putting Mr. Lasnik in fear for his life.

But Officer Romero took absolutely no steps to protect Mr. Lasnik from Corporal

Magness’s abuse. Instead, as Mr. Lasnik was being tortured in the restraint chair, Officer

Romero called him, inter alia, a “stupid fucking idiot,” a “piece of shit,” and a “dumbass drunk.”

Officer Romero told Mr. Lasnik that he was getting what he deserved, and that the officers

would “tack on” additional criminal charges. After Corporal Magness’s enraged assault and

torture finally ended, Officer Romero attempted to hide Corporal Magness’s crimes by writing a

false police report that exposed Mr. Lasnik (but not Corporal Magness) to serious criminal

charges.

What Corporal Magness did to Mr. Lasnik on December 6, 2014 was sadistic and

inhumane. But the blame for Corporal Magness’s conduct is not his alone. It is shared by the

FHPD, which failed to train, supervise, and discipline its officers, rewarded excessive force, and

tolerated dishonesty. And it is shared by Officer Romero who was in a position to stop Corporal

Magness but chose instead to approve and encourage the abuse and torture of Mr. Lasnik.



3/22

3

II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES

1. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff ’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs is conferred

by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

2. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All

of the events and omissions alleged herein occurred within the state of Colorado. At the time of

the events and omissions giving rise to this litigation, all of the parties resided in Colorado.

3. At all pertinent times, Mr. Lasnik was a citizen of the United States and a resident

of the State of Colorado.

4. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Corporal

Mark Magness was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado and was acting

under color of state law in his capacity as a law enforcement officer employed by the FHPD.

5. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Senior

Patrol Officer David Romero was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado and

was acting under color of state law in his capacity as a law enforcement officer employed by the

FHPD.

6. Defendant Karl Wilmes is the current Chief of Police for the FHPD and a

representative and final policymaker for the City of Federal Heights. Defendant Wilmes is a

citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado.



4/22

4

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendant Magness Assaults and Tortures Kent Lasnik

7. Defendant Magness’s assault of Mr. Lasnik was captured by body cameras. The

videos include sound. Additionally, other cameras from the FHPD holding facility provide

alternative views of the assault.

8. On December 6, 2014, Mr. Lasnik was arrested in the City of Federal Heights,

County of Adams, State of Colorado. Defendant Magness and Defendant Romero participated in

the arrest.

9. After Mr. Lasnik ’s arrest, Defendant Magness and Defendant Romero transport

him to the FHPD station in a police car. Mr. Lasnik was on his stomach in the backseat with his

arms handcuffed behind his back. He was not seat-belted, nor were any other measures taken to

ensure his safety.

10. At the police station, Defendant Romero orders Mr. Lasnik out of the police

vehicle. Because he was lying on his seatbelt with his arms handcuffed behind him, Mr. Lasnik

states that he cannot move.

11. Defendant Magness opens the rear door of the police car, grabs Mr. Lasnik by the

right forearm just below the elbow, and drags Mr. Lasnik from the vehicle head-first onto the

concrete floor.

12.

When Mr. Lasnik asks Defendant Magness why he pulled him onto the floor,

Defendant Magness replies “You’re out of the car, aren’t you?”

13. Defendant Magness then screams at Mr. Lasnik to get up from the floor, yanks

him by the elbow, and marches him toward the booking room door. Near the door, Defendant



5/22

5

Magness spins Mr. Lasnik around and slams Mr. Lasnik’s face first into the corner of a

refrigerator placed next to the door.

14. Mr. Lasnik begins bleeding from his chin as a result of being slammed into the

corner of the refrigerator.

15. Neither Defendant Magness nor Defendant Romero request medical treatment or

otherwise provide treatment for Mr. Lasnik’s visible injuries.

16. Inside the police station, while being moved into the holding cell, Mr. Lasnik

curses at Defendant Romero. Defendant Romero grabs Mr. Lasnik by the neck, pushes him into

the cell, and screams at him to “sit the fuck down.”

17. Inside the cell, Mr. Lasnik looks in the general direction of Defendant Magness,

who was outside the cell, and states, “That guy’s a dick.”

18. Defendant Magness enters the cell and engages in a confrontation with Mr.

Lasnik regarding this comment.

19. Defendant Romero later told investigating officers that Defendant Magness “got

up in [Mr. Lasnik’s] face.”

20. Defendant Magness’s decision to enter the cell and tower over Mr. Lasnik in an

aggressive posture causes Mr. Lasnik to react and push his right open hand towards Defendant

Magness. Defendant Magness responds to this defensive gesture by delivering approximately

six closed fist strikes to Mr. Lasnik’s head and torso.

21. Mr. Lasnik offers no physical resistance as Defendant Magness pummels him,

only covering his head and face to protect himself from the strikes. Despite the non-resistance,

Defendant Magness continues to beat Mr. Lasnik.



6/22

6

22. Defendant Magness then takes Mr. Lasnik to the floor, and delivers

approximately six more closed fist strikes to Mr. Lasnik’s torso while Mr. Lasnik futilely

attempts to protect himself.

23. As Defendant Magness delivers his closed fist strikes to Mr. Lasnik’s head and

torso, Defendant Magness repeatedly shouts “stop resisting.” Mr. Lasnik is curled into a ball,

attempting to cover his head and face from Defendant Magness’s blows. Mr. Lasnik was in no

way resisting Defendant Magness’s violence.

24.

After Defendant Magness tires of beating Mr. Lasnik, Mr. Lasnik is left lying on

his stomach on the floor. Defendant Magness holds Mr. Lasnik’s arms behind him as Defendant

Romero applies handcuffs. Defendant Romero calls Mr. Lasnik a “stupid mother -fucker.”

25. Defendants Magness and Romero leave the cell, leaving Mr. Lasnik bleeding and

bruised on the concrete floor with his arms cuffed behind his back.

26. Defendant Magness grabs a restraint chair and hurls it across the police station.

27. Defendants Romero and Magness re-enter the cell, force Mr. Lasnik to his feet,

and Defendant Magness throws him into the restraint chair, all the while Mr. Lasnik is

handcuffed and unable to protect himself.

28. Defendant Magness grabs Mr. Lasnik by the throat and screams at him to “sit up.”

His face is inches from Mr. Lasnik’s.

29.

Once in the restraint chair, Mr. Lasnik continues to offer no resistance.

Nevertheless, Defendant Magness berates him with profanity and challenges. Attempting to

blunt Defendant Magness’s rage, Mr. Lasnik repeatedly tells the officers that he is sorry and will

not do anything.



7/22

7

30. In spite of Mr. Lasnik’s passivity and compliance, Defendant Magness continues

to behave in a manner that projects extreme anger and a loss of control over parts of the

situation.

31. While Mr. Lasnik is strapped in the restraint chair, Defendant Magness, takes the

right shoulder strap of the restraint chair and places it over Mr. Lasnik’s shoulder by striking

down on his shoulder with significant force, yelling at him, “dumbass.”

32. Defendant Magness then strikes and pushes Mr. Lasnik’s head back with

substantial force, yelling “sit back.” Defendant Magness grabs Mr. Lasnik’s head and holds his

temples using his thumb and fingers, applying substantial pressure. Defendant Magness

maintains this pressure hold on Mr. Lasnik’s temples for approximately three minutes.

33. When Defendant Romero advises that Mr. Lasnik will need medical

attention, Defendant Magness responds “I don’t care—strap him in the chair.”

34. Defendant Magness continues to scream at Mr. Lasnik. When Mr.

Lasnik denies taking a swing at Defendant Magness, Defendant Magness responds by taking the

index finger of his left hand and jabbing it into Mr. Lasnik’s left temple, stating “in that precious

little mind of yours you didn’t take a swing, cool.”

35. When Mr. Lasnik reacts by saying “ouch,” Defendant Magness tells Mr. Lasnik

“this is ouch,” as he takes the thumb of his left hand and presses it into the mandibular angle

using a pressure point control tactic, causing extreme pain.

36. Defendant Magness tells Mr. Lasnik, “you read to relax, relax” while forcibly

pushing Mr . Lasnik’s head away from him.

37. Defendant Magness tells Mr. Lasnik, “You didn’t mean to take a



8/22

8

swing at me, I didn’t mean to bust your face up either.”

38. When Mr. Lasnik asks Defendant Magness to calm down, Defendant Magness

states, “fuck you, you ain’t in charge. I’ll calm down when I’m damn good and ready.

Dumbass!”

39. The abuse terminates only when other law enforcement officers enter the police

station.

40. By the time that the other law enforcement officers interrupted Defendants

Magness and Romero’s abuse, the floor of the police station was speckled with drops of Mr.

Lasnik’s blood.

Defendant Romero Encourages Defendant Magness and Fails to Intervene

41. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Defendant Romero was an

eight-year veteran of the FHPD.

42. Earlier on the night of December 6, 2014, Defendant Romero described his arrest

of Mr. Lasnik thusly:

I get out of the car and I go contact him and he goes ‘I’m just looking forsomebody who lives here.’ And I grabbed ahold of him and I say . . . I just put

him in a temple lock and I say motherfucker you do this and I’m going to fucking

throw you on your fucking face, so then I threw him down on the ground.

43. After Defendant Romero handcuffed Mr. Lasnik and placed him inside of the

police car, Defendant Romero approached the police car window and shouted, “stupid fuck;

stupid mother-fucker; you’re a fucking idiot; you’re lucky I didn’t fucking shoot your ass;

fucking dumb mother-fucker.”

44. As written by Deputy Chief Don Vallero in a memorandum, Defendant Romero’s

comments “reflect a level of frustration and/or inimical attitude . . . [that] eventually spills over



9/22

9

to how [Officer Romero] and Corporal Magness later respond to [Mr. Lasnik] at the police

department.”

45. As Defendant Magness abused and tortured Mr. Lasnik, Defendant Romero

motioned several times to his body camera to warn Defendant Magness that he was being

recorded.

46. Defendant Romero did not take any action to stop Defendant Magness from

continuing to abuse Mr. Lasnik, nor did he tell Defendant Magness to stop abusing Mr. Lasnik.

47.

Instead, Defendant Romero encouraged Defendant Magness’s abuse. At the

FHPD station, Defendant Romero berated and insulted Mr. Lasnik as follows:

a. “get your ass up,” after Mr. Lasnik is yanked from the police car

head-first onto the concrete floor;

b. “shut the fuck up” as Mr. Lasnik was brought into the police station

after being shoved face-first into the refrigerator;

c. “Sit down! Sit the fuck down!” while shoving Mr. Lasnik by the neck

into the holding cell;

d. “you stupid mother -fucker,” immediately after Mr. Lasnik was

assaulted in the cell and was lying motionless on the cement floor;

e. “you’re an idiot, you’re a class one fucking idiot,” after Mr. Lasnik

was thrown into the restraint chair;

f. “stop resisting, do you understand me, stop fucking doing it,” while

Mr. Lasnik sat compliantly in the restraint chair;

g. “shut up, I told you to shut the fuck up from the beginning” as



10/22

10

Officer Romero tightened the chair restraints; and

h. “sorry for nothing, you piece of shit,” after Mr. Lasnik apologized.

“You’re a drunk . . . a dumbass drunk at that.”

48. Defendant Romero expressly stated his approval of Defendant Magness’s abuse

by telling Mr. Lasnik , as he was being tortured in the restraint chair, ““fight with the cops, this is

was you get.”

49. Defendant Romero also told Mr. Lasnik “we’ll keep tacking them on,”

foreshadowing how he and Defendant Magness would implicate Mr. Lasnik for a crime to cover

up Defendant Magness’s abuse.

Defendant Romero and Defendant Magness Write False Police Reports Designed toImplicate Mr. Lasnik and Hide the Officers’ Unlawful Conduct

50. Both Defendant Magness and Defendant Romero wrote police reports regarding

the December 6, 2014 incident.

51.

Defendant Magness and Defendant Romero’s police reports contained numerous

falsehoods and material omissions.

52. These police reports were part of the Defendants’ attempt to cover-up Defendant

Magness’s crime as the reports omitted all wrongdoing by Defendant Magness.

53. Defendant Romero falsely wrote that “Cpl. Magness and I assisted Mr. Lasnik out

of the patrol vehicle onto his side and then onto his feet.” Defendant Romero omitted that

Defendant Magness dragged Mr. Lasnik out of the car head-first onto the concrete floor while

Mr. Lasnik was handcuffed.



11/22

11

54. Defendant Magness falsely wrote that “Mr. Lasnik would not step out of the

patrol vehicle,” omitting that Mr. Lasnik had been transported on his stomach with his arms

hand-cuffed behind his back and could not “step out” of the vehicle.

55. Defendant Romero falsely wrote that “Mr. Lasnik’s forward momentum carried

him to a refrigerator . . . .” Defendant Magness falsely wrote that Mr. Lasnik “stumbled into the

refrigerator and wall on the left of the doorway.” Both Defendants omitted that Defendant

Magness forcibly shoved Mr. Lasnik into the corner of the refrigerator, splitting open his chin.

56.

Defendant Romero falsely wrote that Mr. Lasnik “became verbally abusive

towards officers” in the holding cell. Defendant Magness falsely wrote that Mr. Lasnik “became

resistant and verbally abusive” in the holding cell. Both Defendants omitted their own verbal

abuse of Mr. Lasnik.

57. Defendant Romero falsely wrote than “Mr. Lasnik then attempted to assault Cpl.

Magness by throwing a punch in the direction of Cpl. Magness. Officers then attempted to gain

control of Mr. Lasnik when he was actively resisting and we were not able to control him.”

Defendant Magness falsely wrote that “Mr. Lasnik attempted to strike me on the right side of my

face with his right hand in a closed fist” and that “Mr. Lasnik placed his left hand under himself

and kicked backwards toward officers.” Mr. Lasnik did not punch or attempt to punch

Defendant Magness, nor was he actively or passively resisting in any way. Both Defendants

omitted that Defendant Magness delivered 12 punches, not to gain compliance but to punish.

58. Defendant Magness falsely wrote that “Mr. Lasnik was combative in the restraint

chair and attempted to get to his feet.” Mr. Lasnik was not combative and never attempted to

rise to his feet. Defendant Magness also wrote that “[a]t one point Mr. Lasnik stated ‘ow’ and



12/22

12

tried to lift his head forward while Officer Romero was attempting to secure his feet.”

Defendant Magness omitted that Mr. Lasnik stated “ow” as a result of Defendant Magness

pushing his finger into Mr. Lasnik’s head. Defendant Magness also omitted from his report that

he then said “this is ow” and applied a mandibular angle pressure point technique solely to cause

pain.

59. Defendant Romero’s report does not include any mention of Defendant

Magness’s torture of Mr. Lasnik while he was secured in the restraint chair.

60.

As a result of these misleading police reports, Mr. Lasnik was detained on a

charge of Attempted Assault in the Second Degree on a Peace Officer, a class four felony.

Facts Relating to Defendant Magness’s History of Using Excessive Force

61. On July 5, 2009, Defendant Magness assaulted Dennis Discua. Mr. Discua

suffered a dislocated elbow as a result of the assault. The incident was investigated by both

FHPD Internal Affairs and the Adams County District Attorney.

62. Mr. Discua provided a written statement that he was attacked from behind by

Defendant Magness who injured his arm. Mr. Discua wrote that Defendant Magness then left

the scene, and Mr. Discua called 911. Defendant Magness then responded to the 911 call,

returned to the scene, and pretended not to have been there earlier.

63. Three eye-witnesses verified that Defendant Magness had assaulted Mr. Discua.

64.

In his police report, Defendant Magness claimed that Mr. Discua had injured

himself by rolling down a hill.

65. For his assault on Mr. Discua, Defendant Magness was prosecuted by the Adams

County District Attorney’s Office and ultimately convicted of reckless endangerment.



13/22

13

66. On September 5, 2010, Defendant Magness arrested Maria Orrantia. During the

arrest, Defendant Magness grabbed her and threw her to the ground before shoving her into the

police car. When her legs were sticking out of the police car, Defendant Magness struck her

knees with his baton.

67. On March 5, 2011, Defendant Magness was part of a group of officers that

detained Greg Benavides, Katie Benavides, Raul Medina, and Andrea Roybal outside of a bar.

Defendant Magness tackled Ms. Roybal, who suffered significant scrapes and bruises.

68.

On August 27, 2011, Defendant Magness assaulted Edgar Gutierrez-Rodriguez

outside of his home.

69. In his police reports, Defendant Magness wrote that Mr. Gutierrez-Rodriguez was

“non compliant” and “became actively aggressively toward this officer.”

70. Three neighbors provided written statements contradicting Defendant Magness’s

version of events.

71. For example, neighbor Michael A. Berry wrote “I do not know what [Mr.

Gutierrez-Rodridguez] could have done differently. He was not aggressive, confrontive [ sic], or

loud . . . It was obvious to me that the Officer who was applying the most (excessive) force,

Officer Maguss [ sic] did not need to do so to control the man or the situation. Officer Maguss

[ sic] did not need to stomp on the owners back or grind him into the pavement as he did.”

72.

Another neighbor, Gerardo A. Garcia, wrote that “[m]y neighbor was just

screaming because of the pain he was going through. I was so surprised by the officer reaction.

Kept[ ] punching my neighbor . . . . Now I will think twice before calling the cops.”



14/22

14

73. Mr. Gutierrez-Rodriguez suffered significant injuries as a result of Defendant

Magness’s use of excessive force.

74. On June 7, 2013, Defendant Magness confronted Preston James outside his

girlfriend’s apartment, grabbed him by the throat, threw him to the ground and tasered him.

75. On May, 23, 2013, Defendant Magness entered a residence, woke up Matthew

Lister who was in bed, punched him, slammed his face into the floor, and kicked him in the

stomach.

76.

Defendant Magness’ aggression, proclivity towards violence, and temper, which

were on full display during his abuse of Mr. Lasnik, were well-known to the FHPD.

77. During an interview with an Adams County District Attorney investigator,

Defendant Romero acknowledged that Defendant Magness “had a history of . . . being very

aggressive with suspects” and that “he gets very angry and he gets in people’s faces.” Defendant

Romero continued that “a lot of times [Defendant Magness] just sees red and that’s unfortunate.”

78. Defendant Romero explained that there have been times when other officers have

had to physically pull Defendant Magness away from suspects because of his aggression.

Facts Relating to FHPD’s Failure to Discipline, Failure to Train, and Tolerance of

Dishonesty

79. Despite his history of using excessive force, Defendant Magness received

minimal discipline from the FHPD and was promoted to the position of corporal.

80. With regard to his assault on Mr. Discua, which resulted in a criminal conviction,

the FHPD suspended Defendant Magness for only four days.



15/22

15

81. Although Defendant Magness was convicted of a criminal offense, then-Chief of

Police Les Acker wrote in a Letter of Suspension that Defendant Magness was “negligent in this

matter.”

82. Chief Acker’s disciplinary letter was dated December 21, 2009, more than five

months after Defendant Magness’s assault on Mr. Discua, further diluting any punitive effect of

the suspension.

83. With regard to Mr. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, an undated two-paragraph internal

affairs report concluded that “Officer Magness was justified in his contact with Mr. Gutierrez but

should have used better judgment in regard to his approach to him . . . The level of force,

although appropriately and a response to the actions of Mr. Gutierrez, where [ sic] as much a

result of Officer Magness’ aggressive approach as that of Mr. Gutierrez’[s] desire to leave.”

84. The FHPD did not impose any discipline against Defendant Magness for the force

he employed against Mr. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, despite the written statements of three

eyewitnesses demonstrating that Corporal Magness had used excessive force.

85. The FHPD did not investigate, let alone discipline, Defendant Magness for his use

of force against Ms. Orrantia, Mr. Benavides, Ms. Benavides, Mr. Medina, Ms. Roybal, Mr.

Lister, or Mr. James.

86. For writing a blatantly false and misleading police report, which both covered up

Defendant Magness’s assault of a defenseless victim and exposed Mr. Lasnik to unjustified

felony charges, Defendant Romero received nothing more than a “written reprimand.”



16/22

16

VI. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth & Fourteenth Amendments – Excessive Force(Against Defendant Magness)

87. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.

88. At all times relevant to this claim, Defendant Magness was acting under color of

state law in his capacity as a Federal Heights law enforcement officer.

89.

Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person against

unreasonable seizures through excessive force.

90. Any reasonable law enforcement knew or should have known of this clearly

established right.

91. Defendant Magness engaged in the use of force that was objectively unreasonable

in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, including, but not limited to the

following actions:

a. Dragging Plaintiff from the police car face-first onto the concrete

floor, and kicking him on the floor;

b. Slamming Plaintiff face-first into the corner of a refrigerator;

c.

Punching Plaintiff approximately twelve times;

d. Throwing Plaintiff into the restraint chair while he was hand-cuffed

and unable to protect himself;

e. Pushing Plaintiff’s head back against the restraint chair by the



17/22

17

temple;

f. Applying pressure to Plaintiff’s temples for approximately three

minutes;

g. Applying pressure point control tactics on Plaintiff solely to cause

pain.

92. Defendant Magness’s actions, as described herein, were undertaken intentionally,

maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected

rights.

93. The acts and omissions of Defendant Magness were engaged in pursuant to the

custom, policy, and practice of the FHPD, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and ratifies the

use of excessive force and the deprivation of constitutionally protected interests by its law

enforcement officers.

94. Defendant Magness’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to

Plaintiff of which reasonable law enforcement knew or should have known.

95. The acts or omissions of Defendant Magness were the legal and proximate cause

of Plaintiff’s damages.

96. As a direct result of Defendant Magness’ unlawful action as described above,

Plaintiff suffered actual physical, emotional, and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at

trial.

97. Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged by Defendant Magness’ use of

excessive force.



18/22

18

98. Defendant Magness is not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of

conduct.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth & Fourteenth Amendment – Excessive Force/Failure

to Intervene (Against Defendant Romero)


forth herein.

100. At all times relevant to this claim, Defendant Romero was acting under color of

state law in his capacity as a Federal Heights law enforcement officer.

101. Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person against

unreasonable seizures through excessive force.

102. Defendant Romero was present and witnessed the objectively unreasonable force

used by Defendant Magness. However, Defendant Romero failed to take reasonable steps to

protect Plaintiff from the objectively unreasonable force employed by Defendant Magness.

103. Defendant Romero could have prevented or stopped the assault on Plaintiff but

failed to do so.

104. Defendant Romero is therefore liable for the damages resulting from the

objectively unreasonable force used by Defendant Magness. Defendant Romero is also liable for

any damages resulting from his failure to intervene.

105. The acts and omissions of Defendant Romero were engaged in pursuant to the

custom, policy, and practice of the FHPD, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and ratifies the



19/22

19

use of excessive force and the deprivation of constitutionally protected interests by its law

enforcement officers.

106. Defendant Romero’s conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to

Plaintiff of which reasonable law enforcement knew or should have known.

107. The acts or omissions of Defendant Romero were the legal and proximate cause

of Plaintiff’s damages.

108. As a direct result of Defendant Romero’s unlawful action as described above, and

as an indirect result of Defendant Magness’s unlawful action as described above, Plaintiff has

suffered actual physical, emotional, and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.

109. Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged by Defendant Romero and

Defendant Magness’ use of excessive force.

110. Defendant Romero is not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of

conduct.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment – Failure to Train and Supervise

(Against Defendant Wilmes in his official capacity)


forth herein.

112. The FHPD failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline its employees with

respect to the use of excessive force.

113. The FHPD’s failure to, in its supervisory duties, adequately train, supervise, and

discipline its officers with respect to the use of excessive force is a custom, policy, or practice of

the FHPD and a driving force behind the constitutional violations described herein.



20/22

20

114. The FHPD has a culture of tolerating and condoning excessive force by its law

enforcement officers. The FHPD failed to discipline, train, and supervise Defendant Magness

and Defendant Romero concerning the Fourth Amendment and the use of excessive force against

persons in their custody.

115. Despite FHPD being put on notice of Defendant Magness’ brutality towards

citizens, Defendant Magness remained an active member of the FHPD and was even promoted to

corporal.

116.

The decision to retain Defendant Magness’s employment was made by former

FHPD Chief of Police and final policymaker Les Acker.

117. The physical abuse of Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of the FHPD’s

actions and inactions.

118. The FHPD was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of its arrestees

by failing to properly train, monitor, supervise, and discipline its employees with respect to the

use of excessive force. The FHPD could have and should have pursued reasonable methods of

training, monitoring, supervising, and disciplining its employees.

119. The unconstitutional policies, procedures, customs and/or practices of the FHPD

were the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages.

120. The acts or omissions of the FHPD caused Plaintiff damages in that he suffered

extreme physical and mental pain during the assault and torture.

121. The actions or omissions of the FHPD as described herein deprived Plaintiff of

the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States

of America, and caused him other damages.



21/22

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor

and against each of the Defendants, and award then all relief allowed by law, including but not

limited to the following:

(a) All appropriate relief at law and equity;

(b) Declaratory relief and other appropriate equitable relief;

(c) Economic losses on all claims as allowed by law;

(d) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional

distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed

by law in an amount to be determined at trial;

(e) Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined

at trial;

(f) Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert witness

fees, on all claims allowed by law;

(g) Pre- and post-judgment interest at the appropriate lawful rate; and

(h) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as

allowed by law.

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December 2015.

R ATHOD | MOHAMEDBHAI LLC

s/ Matthew J. Cron Matthew J. Cron

Qusair Mohamedbhai

Siddhartha H. Rathod2701 Lawrence Street, #100

Denver, Colorado 80205



22/22

(303) 578-4400 (p)(303) 578-4401 (f)

[email protected]

[email protected]


Documents

Kent Lasnik Lawsuit