HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV217 - Montgomery V. Chernak, Howard & Brough - 015A - Redlined Complaint1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00217-REB-KLM
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CHERNAK,
MIKE HOWARD,
MATTHEW BROUGH.
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
AMENDED COMPLAINT
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, William Montgomery, by and through his attorney, Raymond K. Bryant
of the Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC, hereby submits this Amended Complaint, as
a matter of course, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B), as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a First and Fourth Amendment, contempt of cop, action seeking
damages against several police officers’ for their misconduct in retaliating against a
homeless protester, by unlawfully arresting and prosecuting him for crimes he couldn’t
have committed, which caused him to be incarcerated, needlessly, during two separate
periods of time totaling approximately one month.
2. Plaintiff Montgomery had been known as an activist for homeless
populations in Fort Collins for some time, which included spending significant time in
public protests, advocating for the homeless, and fighting for use of public spaces by the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:46 PM
Deleted: states and alleges
Raymond Bryant 4/25/2018 9:21 AM
Deleted: civil rights
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
2
homeless. He was, largely, considered to be a troublemaker by the Fort Collins police, as
the police answered public nuisance calls by sending police officers to sweep through
areas of homeless congregations and disperse people considered to be eyesores. Plaintiff
Montgomery was present at one such location – a public plaza located in a public right-
of-way – when police began questioning a homeless man about trespassing in a local 7-
11. When Plaintiff questioned the officers, criticized them, and then continued to observe
them from a safe distance inside the public plaza, the officers became irritated and
determined to punish him. The officers arrested Plaintiff and charged him with trespass
on private property and other crimes he did not commit.
3. Plaintiff Montgomery was present at the public plaza that day to raise
awareness to an illegal encroachment on the property, as a fence had been erected around
the public property without authorization of the city, by a private corporation who sought
to keep the homeless away from a construction zone nearby. Plaintiff Montgomery
sought to spread the word to members of the public and the police that the property
remained public and dedicated for public use by communicating and showing
correspondence authored by leadership of the City of Fort Collins who had ordered the
fence around the public plaza to be taken down (but which command had not been
followed up to that point). The officers – who would have had knowledge that the plaza
had, indeed, been a public space for over 20 years – ignored Plaintiff’s protests,
communication, and the evidence he showed them that proved the land remained public
for his and other persons’ use, and arrested him anyway.
4. Plaintiff Montgomery seeks vindication regarding the wrongful allegations
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:25 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:25 AM
Deleted: on the side of a main road
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:13 PM
Deleted: asked
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:13 PM
Deleted: s of
Raymond Bryant 4/25/2018 9:20 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 8:55 AM
Deleted: after police told him to leave the area,
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 8:56 AM
Deleted: charged him with trespass, disorderly
conduct, resisting arrest, and obstruction for simply
remaining entering and remaining within the public
plaza.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 9:50 AM
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:28 AM
Deleted: The fence around the public plaza, was
precisely one of
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:28 AM
Deleted: ’s
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:28 AM
Deleted: reasons for being present that day
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 8:59 AM
Deleted: the
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 8:59 AM
Deleted: f
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:51 PM
Deleted: ,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 3
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24
3
made by the officers, and a remedy for the loss of liberty, emotional distress, dignitary
injuries, and economic damages he suffered by the violation of his First and Fourth
Amendment rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
6. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
7. Venue is proper in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado,
because the incidents and resultant injuries to the Plaintiff giving rise to this action
occurred in Fort Collins, Colorado.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs herein by reference.
9. Plaintiff William Montgomery was, at all times relevant to the claims set
forth below, a resident of the State of Colorado.
10. Defendant Matthew Chernak was, at all times relevant to the subject
matter of this action, employed as a police officer by the Fort Collins Police Department,
and acted under color of law in full police uniform. He is identified in his individual
capacity.
11. Defendant Mike Howard was, at all times relevant to the subject matter of
this action, employed as a police officer by the Fort Collins Police Department, and acted
under color of law in full police uniform. He is identified in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant Matthew Brough was, at all times relevant to the subject matter
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 4
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 7
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 8
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 9
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 1
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24
4
of this action, employed as a police officer by the Fort Collins Police Department, and
acted under color of law in full police uniform. He is identified in his individual capacity.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.
14. Long before January of 2016 (at least 20 years), the City of Fort Collins
built a public seating plaza (“public plaza”) on a public right-of-way, located between a
public sidewalk and a Safeway grocery store, at the 400 block of Remington Street, in
Fort Collins, Colorado (also known as the east side of 460 S. College Ave.).
15. The public plaza area was approximately 50 feet by 20 feet and contained
a large, ornate, sculpture-esque, concrete seating bench that ran from the back of the
right-of-way area to the sidewalk, and contained multiple group seating locations for
public visitors.
16. The public plaza was impressed with a concrete pathway for public use
and was operated and maintained for the benefit of the public by the City of Fort Collins,
just as a sidewalk, street, or public park would be. It clearly and unambiguously met the
definition of public property set out in Fort Collins Municipal Code § 17-42.
17. At some point, the location became regularly used by homeless members
of the public who sought a place to congregate, rest, and socialize.
18. On or before January 11, 2016, some members of the public complained
about the appearance of these groups and sought police intervention to disperse those
who were drawn there.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:52 PM
Deleted: 12. Defendant the City of Ft. Collins,
Colorado is a municipality established under the
laws of Colorado, and is constitutionally responsible
for the policies, practices, and training of its police
officers, including the Defendant officers pursuant to
Section 1983.
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:12 AM
Deleted: held open to the public
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24
5
19. Neighbors and other members of the public called Fort Collins police
hundreds of times to complain about the appearance of the groups, which complaining
persons considered an eyesore. The Fort Collins police received so many telephone calls
that they began classifying such calls with a special flag in the police computer system
“TRAN” (meaning a call regarding “transients”).
20. Being homeless and/or “transient” is not illegal in the state of Colorado,
but Fort Collins police frequently dispatched officers to the scene, anyway, up to three to
four times per day, to look for evidence of unlawful activity and to otherwise discourage
the type of congregating that complaining persons considered to be an eyesore.
21. The seating area was well-known by officers of the Fort Collins Police
Department – especially those who were responsible for patrolling the area and/or who
were regularly dispatched to the location. Through these repeated calls, patrols, roll-call
meetings, supervisory instructions, and repeated contacts, officers knew that the area was
within a public right-of-way and was operated and maintained for use by the public –
even for “transients.”
22. On information and belief, each of the Defendant officers regularly
patrolled and/or were dispatched to the area and knew the area well. The Defendant
officers knew the public plaza was public property, as it was obviously located in a public
right-of-way and it had been created, maintained, and preserved for public use by the City
of Ft. Collins for 20 years or more. As such the officers knew (or should have reasonably
known) that it could not be illegal for any member of the public to be present there.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 9:54 AM
Deleted: ,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 9:55 AM
Deleted: it
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 9:55 AM
Deleted: ,
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:18 PM
Deleted: and
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24
6
23. At some point, on or before January 11, 2016, a company called Loveland
Commercial, LLC who owns several commercial properties in the area, was constructing
buildings across the street and/or in an adjacent area separate from the public plaza. The
company also became bothered by “transients” in the public plaza. They took matters into
their own hands by building a six-foot chain-link fence around the public plaza to block
the homeless from accessing or congregating in the public space.
24. Loveland Commercial knew from its long history of construction projects
in the Loveland and Fort Collins area that city authorization was required to build an
obstruction around public property, but ignored the requirement.
25. However, between January 11 and 19, 2016, a well-known author, David
Sucher, visited the location to gather information about the city for a new book he was
writing, “City Comforts – How to Build an Urban Village.”
26. Fort Collins city officials were embarrassed that the public plaza had been
fenced-in, and that erection of the fence had created an illegal barrier that blocked public
access to the public plaza.
27. On January 19, 2016, Ted Shepard, Chief Planner for the City of Fort
Collins, emailed Loveland Commercial, LLC and informed key board members of the
corporation that the city was “quite surprised” to see the newly-installed six-foot high
chain link fence around the gathering space. Shepard explained that, while “society in
general has issues with individuals with different lifestyles who inhabit our City…a fence
[is not] the solution.” Mr. Shepard further elaborated that without application for some
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:04 AM
Deleted: bothersome persons
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:04 AM
Deleted: a city permit
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:05 AM
Deleted: well known
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24
7
kind of amendment to their authority to erect construction, the fence is likely non-
compliant with municipal ordinances and illegal.
28. On January 26, 2016, Rob Mosbey, Chief Construction Inspector for the
City of Fort Collins, responded to the email-chain discussion (in which he had been
copied by the Chief Planner) and communicated, in brief, clear, and unambiguous
language, that the placement of the fence blocked public property, was an illegal
encroachment, and must be removed. The email communication included various official
Ft. Collins city email addresses and Inspector Mosbey’s office and cellular telephone
numbers.
29. Between January 11 and January 26, Plaintiff Montgomery had become
aware of the fence that blocked homeless persons from congregating in the public space,
as he had sought to utilize the public plaza many times in the past. When he saw that the
plaza was blocked by the chain-link fence, he used the internet to look up Ft. Collins
Municipal Code § 17-42 to confirm that the property was, indeed, public property.
Plaintiff contacted the City Planner’s office for an explanation regarding the fence and
was routed to Inspector Mosbey.
30. On or about January 26, 2016, Chief Inspector Mosbey informed Plaintiff
Montgomery that the public plaza remained public property within a public right-of-way,
that the chain-link fence was an illegal obstruction, and that Inspector Mosbey had
ordered Loveland Commercial to remove the fence.
31. On or about January 27, 2016, Chief Inspector Mosbey provided to
Plaintiff Montgomery a paper copy of the brief, one-page email discussion, pertaining to
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:17 AM
Deleted: there
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:18 AM
Formatted: Font:Italic
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:27 PM
Deleted: blocking
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:23 PM
Deleted: began researching its legality and
purpose.
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:24 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/25/2018 9:03 AM
Deleted: Chief Inspector Mosbey
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:32 AM
Deleted:
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24
8
the city representative’s official communication that the area remained public property,
that the fence was an illegal obstruction, and that the fence must be removed.
32. With proof of Inspector Mosbey’s conclusions and orders regarding the
illegal fence, Plaintiff Montgomery began frequenting the public plaza again. While the
fence continued to obstruct access, Plaintiff Montgomery climbed the fence each time he
visited to gain access to the public plaza. Plaintiff Montgomery not only sought to use the
public space, himself, but also sought to spread the word that the fence was illegal and
that the space continued to remain a place where public visitors should be permitted
access and public use.
33. On January 28, 2016, Defendant Officers Chernak, Howard, and Brough
were dispatched to a 7-11 area located at 430 Remington Street regarding a possible
trespass complaint pertaining to a different person, Melvin Swett.
34. Mr. Swett was not in the 7-11 and could not reasonably be perceived to
have been trespassing at the time police contacted him. Instead, he and Plaintiff
Montgomery were standing near each other, outside, conversing on a public sidewalk.
35. Defendant officers Howard and Chernak approached Mr. Swett and began
asking questions in a voluntary consensual encounter. The officers did not convey to Mr.
Swett that he was being detained. Plaintiff Montgomery questioned whether the officers
were detaining Mr. Swett and/or had reasonable suspicion to believe Mr. Swett had
committed any crime..
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:31 AM
Deleted: conclusion
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:50 AM
Deleted: homeless
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:41 AM
Deleted: was present, nearby,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:41 AM
Deleted: when police
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:43 AM
Deleted: began questioning the suspect.
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 11:34 AM
Deleted: overheard the officers’ discussion and
began
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:44 AM
Deleted: ing
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:44 AM
Deleted: why the officers were asking this man
questions and whether the officers had
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:44 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:44 AM
Deleted: for, what appeared to be, a consensual
encounter growing into a contentious police
detention
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24
9
36. Defendant Officers Howard and Chernak expressed visible and audible
annoyance with Plaintiff’s questions and criticisms. Defendant Howard responded to
Plaintiff’s speech with a directive to leave the area.
37. Plaintiff complied with Defendant Howard’s request. Plaintiff climbed the
fence around the public plaza, and stood peaceably within the public seating area, while
continuing to observe the police interaction for any evidence of mistreatment of the
homeless man. There, he thought, he could not reasonably be perceived as interfering,
since a fence physically separated him from the officers. Plaintiff also saw his presence
within the public plaza as an opportunity to raise awareness to the issues pertaining to the
illegal fence on public land.
38. Defendants Howard and Chernak took obvious offense to Plaintiff’s
criticism of the officers and his continued observation of the police interaction after they
told him to leave, which they viewed as disobedience and a challenge to their authority.
The Officers decided to punish and retaliate against him, by manufacturing a pretextual
reason to arrest Plaintiff Montgomery.
39. Defendant Officers Howard and Chernak saw the fence surrounding the
public plaza and discussed with each other that the fence might provide them an illusory
justification to assert that Plaintiff was trespassing. The officers did not obtain any
information suggesting that the property had changed in character from public to private.
The officers did not obtain any information indicating that anyone other than the city
owned the property. The officers did not inquire into whether Plaintiff had consent to be
present there, or whether Plaintiff had, otherwise, lawfully/unlawfully entered the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:38 AM
Deleted: Police
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:38 AM
Deleted: viewed
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:39 AM
Deleted: as an annoyance. The officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:45 AM
Deleted: so that the officers could continue with
the police contact, uninterrupted by such criticism.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:39 AM
Deleted: the officers’
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:39 AM
Deleted: with the police investigation
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 7
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:40 AM
Deleted: The Defendant officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:40 AM
Deleted: Defendant
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 8
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:41 AM
Deleted: The officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:57 AM
Deleted: and/or reasoned
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 10:57 AM
Deleted: would
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24
10
property. The officers did not obtain any information indicating that Plaintiff was
unwelcome there or that Plaintiff needed to be removed.
40. In fact, Plaintiff did not unlawfully enter the property; the property had
remained public for more than 20 years. Plaintiff had received confirmation from City
officials, including the Chief City Planner and Chief City Inspector, that the area
remained public property, that he and other members of the public continued to be
allowed access to the space, and that the fence was an illegal encroachment that had been
ordered to be removed.
41.. Defendant Officer Howard told Plaintiff Montgomery that he was
trespassing and to provide his name and date of birth. Plaintiff verbally questioned the
determination that he was trespassing by telling Defendant Howard and Chernak that he
was allowed to be present in the public plaza because it was part of a public park and/or
right-of-way, that the fence was an illegal encroachment designed to discriminatorily
keep homeless people out, and that he had spoken to the city’s Chief Inspector and
confirmed that he was allowed to be present there.
42. After explaining that the area continued to remain public property,
Plaintiff provided his name, and continued explaining that he had a right to be in the
public plaza because the fence was not a city fence and that it had been erected by a
private corporation, illegally. The Defendant officers heard Plaintiff provide his name
and used it to conduct a background search using a police computer-aided system and/or
communication with dispatch. Seconds later, Plaintiff Montgomery overheard his date of
birth transmitted over police radio and confirmed that was his date of birth.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 39
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:45 AM
Deleted: The officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:45 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:45 AM
Deleted: officers’
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:00 PM
Deleted: the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:45 AM
Deleted: officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:44 AM
Deleted: c
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:44 AM
Deleted: i
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:44 AM
Deleted: A moment
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:11 AM
Deleted: asked “is that my birthdate I just heard,”
which was meant to confirm his date of birth for the
officers
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of
24
11
43. Defendant Howard and Chernak both told Plaintiff that he was going to be
placed into custody and charged with trespass. Defendant Officer Brough arrived and
began assisting the officers. All three Defendant officers asked Plaintiff to climb back
over the fence so that they could handcuff him.
44. Plaintiff verbally protested the officers’ conclusions and continued to
provide information to the three officers indicating that he was not breaking the law.
Plaintiff reasserted his earlier communications regarding the nature of the property, the
illegal fence, and his discussion with Inspector Mosbey, to Defendant Brough.
45. Plaintiff informed all three officers that he had proof in the form of an
email from the City Inspector’s Office proving that what he was telling the officers was
the truth about the nature of the property and his lawful presence there.
46. It soon became clear that the officers were not listening to or responding
to Plaintiff’s attempts to communicate; none of the officers appeared interested in
considering the matters about which Plaintiff provided information.
47. Soon after, Plaintiff yelled out to his brother, who was parked across the
street in a white van observing the incident, asking him to bring the email proof for the
officers to see. Defendant Officer Brough knew Plaintiff’s brother from prior interactions
and recognized him as he approached.
48. Plaintiff’s brother delivered the printed email that had earlier been
provided by Inspector Mosbey to Defendant Brough.
49. Defendant Brough stood and read the email in front of Plaintiff and the
officers. Defendant Brough then handed the email to Defendant Chernak, who also
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 1
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:46 AM
Deleted: One of the Defendant officers
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:33 AM
Deleted: criminal
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 2
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 11:37 AM
Deleted: requests
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:50 AM
Deleted: the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:12 AM
Deleted: his
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:52 AM
Deleted: 43. The officers became louder and
more aggressive, ordering Plaintiff to climb back
over the fence so that they could place handcuffs on
him. Of course, Plaintiff had no legal obligation to
climb over the fence or to otherwise follow the
officers’ requests. Plaintiff had done nothing
criminal. He remained legally free to ignore the
requests. ... [1]
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:52 AM
Deleted: .
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 7
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:10 PM
Deleted: read
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:55 AM
Deleted: , at least, part of
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of
24
12
looked at it. As a result, both officers knew or should have known that the email provided
exculpatory evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff could not have been trespassing by
being present in the public plaza. The two officers would have seen that the paper copy of
the email had involved several members of the City of Fort Collins, with official Fort
Collins email addresses, telephone numbers for Inspector Mosbey, and which included
communications about the public nature of the public plaza, the encroachment of the
illegal fence, and the order to Loveland Commercial LLC to take down the fence.
50. Defendant Chernak and Howard, together, walked away from the public
plaza, around the corner, with the email in hand, so as to leave the audible range of
Plaintiff Montgomery and nearby witnesses.
51. On information and belief, the officers spoke about the situation, for the
next few minutes. The officers, obviously, appeared visibly upset and annoyed by
Plaintiff’s continued presence and communications. They discussed and agreed to charge
Plaintiff Montgomery with anything and everything that they believe they could illusorily
justify to their supervising sergeant, in order to punish Plaintiff for his speech, criticism,
and perceived challenge to the Defendant officers. The two agreed to charge Plaintiff
with not only trespass, but also other crimes that were not supported by probable cause,
including obstruction, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. When the two officers
returned, they said something to Defendant Brough, and the three appeared resolved to
act in furtherance of a common plan of action.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:22 AM
Deleted: he
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:22 AM
Deleted: Defendant Brough
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:22 AM
Deleted: 48. Defendant Brough handed the email
to Defendant Chernak.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 49
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:35 AM
Deleted: Plaintiff Montgomery’s claims, the email,
and other related matters
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:56 AM
Deleted: .
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:25 PM
Deleted: ing
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:25 PM
Deleted: ,
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 11:38 AM
Deleted: conspired to charge Plaintiff with
additional crimes that were not supported by
probable cause, including obstruction, resisting
arrest, and disorderly conduct. The officers sought
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:59 AM
Deleted:
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of
24
13
52. Shortly thereafter, another officer arrived with bolt cutters and cut the lock
to a gate that opened up to the public plaza. The three officers then cooperatively placed
hands on Plaintiff, placed Plaintiff’s hands into handcuffs, and took Plaintiff into custody.
53. Plaintiff did not, at any time, physically resist or otherwise physically fight
or challenge the officers. The officers, each, grabbed him, placed handcuffs on him,
walked him to the police vehicle, placed him into a police vehicle, and Defendant
Chernak transported him to jail. Plaintiff only verbally voiced his concerns and criticisms
to officers and surrounding persons about the unlawful nature of the arrest.
54. As Defendant Chernak drove Plaintiff to the police station, Plaintiff asked
Defendant Chernak why he didn’t act on the exculpatory email evidence that his brother
provided to the officer regarding the public plaza. Defendant Chernak responded,
facetiously, that “you were being too loud for me to read it.” Plaintiff explained again
that the email showed that he had spoken to Inspector Mosbey the day before and that the
email proved the area was public property upon which Plaintiff could not possibly have
trespassed. Plaintiff then verbally protested the arrest and criticized the officer for
wrongfully arresting him without lawful basis. Defendant Chernak ignored the plainly
exculpatory evidence.
55. The three officers unreasonably failed to investigate the information
Plaintiff provided about the nature of the property, the availability of the property to
members of the public, and the consent Plaintiff was provided by city officials to be
present. The three Defendants failed to discuss with their supervisor the nature of the
public property or the email communications about it, failed to make any effort to look up
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:42 PM
Deleted: 1
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:03 PM
Deleted: open the fence surrounding
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:00 PM
Deleted: The Defendant officers
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:18 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 10:57 AM
Deleted: arrested
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:03 PM
Deleted: without incident.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:43 PM
Deleted: 2
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:29 PM
Deleted: with
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:24 AM
Deleted: as they seized
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:04 PM
Deleted: that he was being wrongfully arrested
and taken into custody, in protest of the wrongful
arrest, and so that others might witness the unlawful
conduct of the Defendant officers.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:43 PM
Deleted: 3
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:01 PM
Deleted: that
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:41 AM
Deleted: began
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:41 AM
Deleted: ing
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:41 AM
Deleted:
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of
24
14
or review police or city records concerning the property, and failed to call Inspector
Mosbey (or any other city official) to obtain clarity regarding the property or the consent
that had been provided for Plaintiff to be present in the public plaza. Any of these actions
would have required mere minutes and would have proven that Plaintiff could not have
been guilty of trespass on the public land.
56. Approximately 45 minutes later, Defendant Chernak filed a warrantless
arrest affidavit asserting that Plaintiff committed the crimes of Trespass, Obstruction,
Resisting Arrest, Disorderly Conduct, and Violation of Bail Bond. Defendant Chernak
asserted false facts in the affidavit, including that Plaintiff (a) “interfered” with the
officers’ earlier contact with another person, (b) “un-lawfully entered” the fenced-in area,
(c) “refused to identify himself,” and (d) “required” the officers to use bolt cutters to gain
entry to the fenced-in area. Defendant Chernak purposefully omitted that the property
Plaintiff entered into was a public seating area operated and maintained by the city; that
Plaintiff had provided exculpatory information and evidence demonstrating that the
property remained public, despite an illegally erected fence; and that he had permission to
be present there. Defendant Chernak omitted that he did not have any information
indicating there was any private owner of the property, whether Plaintiff had consent to
be present there, or how Defendant Chernak came to the conclusion that Plaintiff “un-
lawfully” entered the property. Defendant Chernak charged Plaintiff in retaliation for the
trouble Plaintiff gave him and the other two officers, via his, Protected, First Amendment
protests and speech.
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 9:51 AM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:43 PM
Deleted: 4
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:16 PM
Deleted: – without possessing reasonably
trustworthy information indicating that he committed
any of those crimes, in contradiction of the
information the officers knew about the nature of the
property, and while ignoring the email and other
communications Plaintiff Montgomery had provided,
which demonstrated public officials from the city of
Fort Collins had taken official action to preserve
public access to the property. The officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:48 PM
Deleted: them
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of
24
15
57. On information and belief, all three Defendant Officers met and discussed
the charges, and agreed that they would assert false factual information that would
illusorily support the wrongful charges, including inter alia, that Plaintiff (a) “interfered”
with the officers’ earlier contact with another person, (b) “unlawfully” entered private
property, (c) attempted to use the fence as an “obstruction” to keep officers from
arresting him, (d) yelled at the top of his lungs to wake/disturb neighbors, (e) resisted
arrest, and (f) violated the terms of an earlier bond condition by not remaining lawful.
58. Afterward, all three Defendant Officers drafted police reports including
the false, exaggerated, and misrepresentative information in order to cause Plaintiff to be
detained, to cover up and conceal their own abuse of authority, and to continue to punish
Plaintiff for what they perceived as challenges to their authority and annoyance of the
speech of the protester.
59. Upon information and belief, the warrantless arrest affidavit, summons,
and complaint documents were submitted directly to the criminal court by the officer(s)
pursuant to Colorado’s simplified misdemeanor complaint procedure, C.R.S. § 16-2-104,
and were relied upon by the court and the prosecutor to initiate and continue the criminal
prosecution against Plaintiff.
60. As a result of the wrongful charges, Plaintiff spent three days in jail, from
January 28-30, 2016.
61. On or about February 1, 2016, in coordination with the prosecutor,
Defendant Chernak filed an additional affidavit in Larimer County Court, for the
purposes of advancing the charge of violation of bail bond condition, in order to cause the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:43 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:02 PM
Deleted: the officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:15 PM
Deleted: told the officers that he believed the
public plaza was owned by the nearby grocery store,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:15 PM
Deleted: b
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:16 PM
Deleted: c
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:16 PM
Deleted: d
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:16 PM
Deleted: e
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:43 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:03 PM
Deleted: the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:03 PM
Deleted: o
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:03 PM
Deleted: a
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 57
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 58
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:49 PM
Deleted: supporting
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of
24
16
court to revoke Plaintiff’s bond in an earlier case that had involved Plaintiff’s protesting
for the homeless. The affidavit asserted that Plaintiff had committed the five offenses
listed in the case, including violation of bail bond conditions, and that he would act as a
witness for the offenses and provide all discoverable materials in support of the charges.
62. During the criminal prosecution, Plaintiff continued to protest his
innocence, contacting the prosecutor multiple times and leaving voicemail messages that
explained in detail how he could not have committed the crimes alleged. Plaintiff directed
the prosecutor to the exculpatory emails that confirmed he could not have committed the
crimes alleged and that the officers acted unreasonably in arresting him without probable
cause.
63. The prosecutor was influenced by the Defendant officers’ false statements
and ignored the exculpatory import of the Mosbey email that had been provided. As a
result, the prosecution dragged on, unnecessarily, for almost two years.
64. On information and belief, the prosecutor communicated with all three of
the Defendant officers through in-person meetings and email, as is typical of cases
involving police complaining witnesses. All three Defendant officers continued to assert
false facts and to otherwise support the criminal prosecution through assertions that they
witnessed, in person, the crimes that were, allegedly, committed.
65. On February 8, 2016, Tammy Fisher, Court Services Specialist II for the
Larimer County Pretrial Services Program, was influenced by Defendant Chernak’s (and
the other two Defendant Officers’) assertions that Plaintiff failed to remain lawful. She
cited the Defendant Officers’ assertions of criminal activity as a basis for noncompliance
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 59
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:32 AM
Deleted: /or
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:04 PM
Deleted: offered
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 1
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:04 PM
Deleted: the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 12:04 PM
Deleted: The
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 2
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of
24
17
with Plaintiff’s bond conditions in another case, and, petitioned the court to revoke
Plaintiff’s bond.
66. On or about February 16, 2016, Loveland Commercial, LLC, removed the
fence around the public plaza, as had been ordered by Inspector Mosbey.
67. On or about February 18, 2016, the criminal court granted the petition to
revoke Plaintiff’s bond based on the Defendant Officers’ assertions of criminal conduct.
As a result, a warrant was issued for Plaintiff Montgomery and Plaintiff was incarcerated
from March 25-April 19, 2016.
68. Eventually, in July of 2017, the prosecutor verbally acknowledged to
Plaintiff Montgomery that he was correct about the nature of the public property and his
presence there. The prosecutor admitted contacting the city attorney’s office and
confirming that the area was public property.
69. On or about August 31, 2017 the prosecutor dismissed the charge of
trespass against Plaintiff Montgomery.
70. On or about November 16, 2017, the prosecutor reviewed the remaining
charges that allegedly stemmed from the purported trespass and dismissed all remaining
charges against Plaintiff Montgomery.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. §1983 - Retaliation for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Expression
(Against Defendant Officers Chernak and Howard)
71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each
and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
72. At the time the Defendant Officers took action to seize and detain Plaintiff
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 3
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 4
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 11:36 AM
Deleted: reviewed the many messages Plaintiff
had left describing how he was innocent of the
crimes alleged and also reviewed the exculpatory
email Plaintiff had provided. While the information
suggested to the prosecutor that Plaintiff was likely
innocent of the crimes asserted by the Defendant
officers, the Defendant officers did not support
dismissal of the case. On information and belief, this
created a conflict between the arresting officers and
the prosecutor, which was left unresolved for some
time.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 67
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:08 PM
Deleted: stemming from the case.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:15 PM
Deleted: All Individual Defendant Officers
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 68
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 69
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of
24
18
Montgomery, he had committed no crime in the deputy’s presence; he had only expressed
verbal criticism and questioning of the officers, and, otherwise, entered public land to
raise awareness to a public access issue pertaining to the land.
73. The speech, criticism, profanity, and/or the act of entering the public plaza
that the Defendant Officers witnessed could not have reasonably been construed to be a
crime or warrant arrest. The officers had knowledge that the public plaza had been
created, operated, and maintained by the city for public use for decades. The location of
the property in a public right-of-way, and the concrete pathway and other improvements
made clear that the area was public property. Plaintiff provided the officers information
and evidence about the property, the nature of the fence that illegally blocked public
access to the public plaza, and he and the public’s authority to enter the property.
74. The Defendant Officers took action to seize, detain, prosecute, and to
otherwise injure, humiliate, and cause emotional distress to Plaintiff Montgomery, in
order to retaliate against Mr. Montgomery for his protected, First Amendment,
expressions, to punish Plaintiff for appearing to challenge the officers, and to illusorily
justify and/or cover up their misconduct.
75. The actions of the Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff Montgomery injury
that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected First
Amendment expression. Plaintiff was yelled at, seized, arrested, charged with crimes he
did not commit, prosecuted, jailed, and otherwise suffered loss of liberty and emotional
distress.
76. Such actions by the Defendant Officers, while acting under color of law,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 1
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 2
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 3
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of
24
19
deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities, secured by the
Constitution of the United States of America, including the right to free speech
guaranteed by the First Amendment, and which is made actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983, which actions proximately resulted in the injuries described above.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment Violation – Unlawful Arrest and Detention
(Against All Individual Defendant Officers)
77. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein,
each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
78. The Defendant officers caused the arrest, detention, and confinement of
Plaintiff Montgomery from January 28-30, 2016, without possessing probable cause to
believe that he had committed the crimes alleged. While the officers accused Plaintiff of
committing trespass on private property, the officers had knowledge that the area was
public property, not private property, and that Plaintiff could not have been trespassing or
resisting by peacefully being present there.
79. Even if the officers had a suspicion that Plaintiff could have, arguably,
committed trespass, or any other crime, such suspicion was vitiated by information that
the officers knew, had obtained, or to which they had ready access, before the arrest,
immediately following the arrest, and/or within a reasonable time during which Plaintiff
was being detained in the detention facility from January 28-30, 2016.
80. Even if the officers did not believe Plaintiff or the evidence provided by
Plaintiff’s brother, the officers failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the
property, the exculpatory email, and/or the alleged crimes committed by Plaintiff.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 4
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:15 PM
Deleted: on
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:15 PM
Formatted: Font:Italic
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:44 PM
Deleted: 77
Raymond Bryant 4/24/2018 1:57 PM
Deleted: pertaining to the nature of the public
property at issue during the arrest,
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of
24
20
81. When reporting the basis/probable cause for Plaintiff Montgomery’s
seizure and arrest, the Defendant officers asserted information that they knew to be
objectively doubtful, untrue, exaggerated, and/or false, to ensure that Plaintiff would be
detained and/or prosecuted.
82. Based upon the totality of the information the Defendant Officers
collected, or had access to, and the circumstances in which they obtained it, no
reasonable police officer would have believed that he had sufficient reasonably
trustworthy information necessary to fairly believe Plaintiff Montgomery had committed
the crimes alleged.
83. The intentional and/or reckless conduct of the Defendant Officers, acting
under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges, liberties, and
immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America, made actionable
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the unlawful seizure and detention that followed,
and which proximately caused Plaintiff loss of liberty and emotional harms.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourth Amendment Deprivation - Wrongful and Malicious
Prosecution
(Against All Individual Defendant Officers)
84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, each
and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
85. The Defendant Officers did not have probable cause to believe Plaintiff
Montgomery had committed the crimes of Trespass, Obstruction, Resisting Arrest,
Disorderly Conduct, and/or Violation of Bail Bond, but criminally charged him,
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 78
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 79
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 1
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 2
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 20 of
24
21
exaggerated their version of the events, and made false statements that ensured his
prosecution for such crimes, anyway.
86. The Defendant Officers knew, should have known, and/or had received,
read, taken custody of, and/or been informed of, exculpatory information in the form of
an email communication and/or the transmission of information indicating that the
fenced-in area surrounding the public plaza was public property, that Plaintiff was
allowed to be present within, and/or that it could not be a violation of law for Plaintiff to
climb the fence and/or otherwise watch/observe the Defendants from within the public
plaza area.
87. The Defendant Officers knew or should have known that claiming they
saw Mr. Montgomery trespass, resist, and obstruct the officers (when attempting to
perform certain duties) would provide false evidence that would result in his detention
and criminal prosecution.
88. Despite this knowledge, the Defendant Officers gave oral and written
statements to other law enforcement officers, the prosecutor, and the court asserting that
Plaintiff Montgomery had “unlawfully” entered into private land, “interfered,” “resisted”
and/or “obstructed” the officers, and “yelled” to wake neighbors, in order to retaliate
against and/or punish Plaintiff, and to attempt to cover up, conceal, and/or otherwise
superficially justify Defendants’ misconduct.
89. The officers failed to conduct reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s
communications and email evidence concerning the nature of the property and the
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 3
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 4
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 5
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 6
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:18 PM
Deleted: p
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:18 PM
Deleted: assertions
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:18 PM
Deleted: about
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 21 of
24
22
consent he was provided to be there, and, instead, acted to abuse their authority and to
harm Plaintiff.
90. In furtherance of the conspiracy to maliciously cause Plaintiff to be
wrongly prosecuted, Defendant Chernak knowingly omitted materially exculpatory
information from his probable cause affidavit relating to the arrest, including but not
limited to information the officers would have known about the nature of the public
plaza, and, information communicated and otherwise presented to the officers in the form
of email communications authored by city officials.
91. Three days after the arrest, Defendant Chernak submitted an additional
affidavit alleging that he had witnessed the crimes originally alleged, in order to cause
Plaintiff’s bond in another case to be revoked, so that Plaintiff would be re-arrested and
re-incarcerated.
92. The Defendant Officers’ allegations, misrepresentations, and omissions
caused Plaintiff’s repeated incarcerations, bond revocation, and the long and drawn out
wrongful criminal prosecution.
93. The criminal charges against Plaintiff Montgomery were ultimately
dismissed, in circumstances suggestive of Plaintiff’s innocence.
94. The actions as described herein, under color of state law, deprived
Plaintiff of the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of
the United States of America, made actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and which
proximately caused loss of liberty, emotional distress, and other injuries associated with
wrongful prosecution.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:18 PM
Deleted: and the email concerning the nature of
the property in retaliation for Plaintiff’s First
Amendment expression
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:19 PM
Deleted: s, and because they knew that such
investigation would reveal the undeniable and
objective truth about Plaintiff’s assertions, of which
the officers knew they would have to detail in
supplemental reports, which would exculpate
Plaintiff of the crimes asserted.
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 87
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:20 PM
Deleted: exculpatory information pertaining
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 88
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 89
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 0
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 1:45 PM
Deleted: 1
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 22 of
24
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in his
favor and against all Defendants for compensatory damages, as referenced above,
punitive damages against the individual Defendants, for interest as allowed by law, for
costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees, as allowed by statute or as
otherwise allowed by law, and for any other and further relief that this Court shall deem
just and proper.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL TO
A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April, 2018.
Civil Rights Litigation Group, PLLC
s/ __Raymond K. Bryant________
Raymond K. Bryant
1543 Champa St., Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
P: 720-515-6165
F: 720-465-1975
Raymond@rightslitigation.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 25th day of April, 2018, the foregoing AMENDED
COMPLAINT was filed with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system, which is
expected to send notification of such filing to the following:
Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
Christina S. Gunn, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th
Street, Suite 300,
Denver, CO 80202
303-628-3300 /
Fax: 303-628-3368
lyonst@hallevans.com /
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:06 PM
Deleted:
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:06 PM
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Line
spacing: single, No widow/orphan control
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:02 PM
Deleted: 8
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:02 PM
Deleted: January
Raymond Bryant 4/23/2018 2:05 PM
Formatted: Centered, Adjust space
between Latin and Asian text, Adjust
space between Asian text and numbers
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 23 of
24
24
gunnc@hallevans.com
Case 1:18-cv-00217-REB-KLM Document 15-1 Filed 04/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 24 of
24