HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-cv-2187 - Kulas V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al. - 001 - Complaint And Jury Demand 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-CV-2187
ANDRU KULAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
KEVIN PARK, Fort Collins Police Officer, in his individual capacity, and
AVERY HANZLICEK, Fort Collins Police Officer, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Andru Kulas, by and through his attorneys Sarah Schielke of The Life & Liberty
Law Office LLC and Matthew Haltzman of the Haltzman Law Firm, P.C., respectfully alleges for
his Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages and other relief against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and § 13-21-131, C.R.S. for violations of Plaintiff Mr. Kulas’s civil constitutional rights
to be free from excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and wrongful arrest.
2. On August 29, 2021, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth,
Fourteenth, and First Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
under section 7 of Article II of the Colorado state constitution.
3. Defendant Park without legal justification or provocation, tackled and deployed pepper spray
directly into Plaintiff Mr. Kulas’s open eyes from just two inches away, causing him blindness,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 35
2
extreme pain, and suffering. This outrageous use of excessive force upon Mr. Kulas was
Officer Park’s reaction to Mr. Kulas declining to hold onto a paper summons that had been
handed to him. Mr. Kulas had done nothing threatening to either officer and in fact was simply
attempting to walk away from the officers when Defendants Park and Hanzlicek launched this
unlawful attack.
4. Defendant Fort Collins Police Services has a long and well-documented history of employing
excessive force on non-threatening individuals and, specifically, of employing pepper spray
on non-threatening individuals for non-threatening actions like merely walking away from an
officer.
5. Defendant Fort Collins Police Services has regularly ratified, condoned, and approved of these
constitutional violations by its officers and in this case as well, following an excessive force
complaint made by Mr. Kulas, again subsequently expressly ratified such misconduct by
Defendants Park and Hanzlicek.
6. The Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff Mr. Kulas to endure pain, suffering, humiliation,
emotional distress, anxiety, terror, attorney fees, and other damages.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
Colorado, including Article III, section 1 of the United States Constitution and Title 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343(a)(3).
9. This Court has authority to grant the declaratory relief sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
10. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and costs is conferred by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 35
3
11. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All of the events
alleged herein occurred within the State of Colorado or were directed at individuals within the
State of Colorado.
III. PARTIES
12. Plaintiff, Andru Kulas, is a citizen of the United States and was at all times relevant hereto a
resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. He resides in the City of Fort Collins, State
of Colorado.
13. Defendant Kevin Park is a natural person, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint duly
appointed and sworn as a police officer for the City of Fort Collins in Fort Collins, Colorado.
At all times relevant hereto Defendant Park was acting under color of law, including when his
actions were in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Officer Park is a named Defendant in
his individual capacity.
14. Defendant Avery Hanzlicek is a natural person, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint
duly appointed and sworn as a police officer for the City of Fort Collins in Fort Collins,
Colorado. At all times relevant hereto Defendant Hanzlicek was acting under color of law,
including when his actions were in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of
Colorado and the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Officer Hanzlicek is
a named Defendant in his individual capacity.
15. Defendant City of Fort Collins (referred to herein interchangeably as “the City,” “Fort Collins,”
and “FCPS”) is a Colorado municipal corporation and is the legal entity responsible for itself
and for Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 35
4
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendants wrongfully seized and arrested Mr. Kulas, and used excessive force in doing so.
16. On July 4, 2021, Mr. Kulas’s dad passed away suddenly from a pulmonary embolism. Mr.
Kulas had no other family. His father’s unexpected death left him with no one. He was
devastated.
17. August 28, 2021 would have been Mr. Kulas’s dad’s birthday. He was filled with grief and
still utterly depressed. Two of his friends, knowing how much he would be suffering that day,
didn’t want Andru to have to be alone. They convinced him to come out and have some drinks
with them to take his mind off of this significant and sad date.
18. Later that night, early in the morning of August 29, 2021, at approximately 1:50 am, officers
with Fort Collins Police Services contacted Plaintiff Andru Kulas near the intersection of
College and Mountain Avenues in Old Town Fort Collins in response to a call alleging third
degree trespass, a petty offense.
19. An individual identified as Nicholas Muellerleile had reported two males had gone onto the
rooftop of a bar where he said there were “No Trespassing” signs located.
20. Multiple FCPS officers responded to investigate this petty trespass call.
21. Some portions of the factual allegations described herein were captured by the Defendant
officers bodyworn cameras. Those videos are made part of the factual allegations of this
Complaint and have been attached as conventionally submitted Exhibit 1 (Park Bodyworn
Camera) and Exhibit 2 (Hanzlicek Bodyworn Camera).
22. Upon arrival several minutes later, the FCPS officers found Mr. Muellereile and interviewed
him. Mr. Muellerleile claimed that it was Plaintiff Mr. Kulas and his companion Nicholas
Byers who had been on the roof without permission. He admitted that Mr. Kulas and Mr. Byers
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 35
5
were no longer on or near the rooftop but told FCPS officers he could lead them to where Mr.
Kulas and Mr. Byers were now located.
23. Mr. Muellerleile pointed out to FCPS officers Mr. Kulas and Mr. Byers, who were now across
the street at a food stand eating burritos they had purchased, and bothering no one.
24. Defendant Officer Avery Hanzlicek and FCPS Officer Andrew Ortiz went across the street to
contact and interrogate Mr. Kulas and Mr. Byers.
25. Officer Hanzlicek reached Mr. Kulas first and told him he needed to speak with him. Mr. Kulas
said he did not want to talk to Officer Hanzlicek and began to walk away. Officer Hanzlicek
grabbed Mr. Kulas’s arm and pulled him towards him, and told him he had to speak to him.
Mr. Kulas told Officer Hanzlicek not to touch him and asked what he was bothering him for.
26. Officer Hanzlicek asked Mr. Kulas for his ID. Mr. Kulas provided Officer Hanzlicek his ID.
27. After speaking with Mr. Kulas and Mr. Byers, and then speaking with each other, officers
Hanzlicek and Ortiz decided they had probable cause to issue a summons to Mr. Kulas and
Mr. Byers for petty offense third degree trespass.
28. Officer Hanzlicek began writing a summons to Mr. Kulas for petty third degree trespass.
29. Mr. Kulas was eating his burrito and standing a safe and appropriate distance away from
Officer Hanzlicek as he wrote the summons.
30. Mr. Kulas and Mr. Byers had previously explained to the officers that they were trying to find
the guys that had injured Mr. Byers’ girlfriend moments prior. The officers ignored these
comments. The officers’ inaction and lack of concern for Mr. Byers’s girlfriend led Mr. Kulas
to begin making several comments critical of the police officers.
31. Defendant Officer Kevin Park arrived during this time. Defendant Park observed that Mr.
Kulas’s hands were occupied with eating his burrito and that Mr. Kulas was also standing a
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 35
6
respectful and non-threatening distance from the officers while the summons was written and
while he made his various comments criticizing the officers.
32. Defendant Park, growing angry at Mr. Kulas and desiring to retaliate against him for his critical
comments, began ordering Mr. Kulas to “get back” from Officer Hanzlicek while Hanzlicek
finished writing the summons. There was no need for this but Mr. Kulas nevertheless complied
with the order and backed further away from Hanzlicek. As he did so, he said, “I’ll back away
and I’ll still talk my piece because that’s my right.”
33. Defendant Park angrily told Mr. Kulas “you don’t have rights right now.”
34. Officer Hanzlicek finished writing the summons and citation for Mr. Kulas. The officers
informed Mr. Kulas that he was being charged with petty trespass and began explaining the
summons to him.
35. Mr. Kulas backed away from the officers and told them he was not signing anything. Officer
Hanzlicek told Mr. Kulas that he did not need to sign the citation.
36. Defendant Park, unable to contain his anger towards Mr. Kulas any longer, abruptly took over
the encounter. He snatched the summons out of Hanzlicek’s hand, and told Mr. Kulas that he
needed to take the summons. Mr. Kulas refused, as was his right. Defendant Park,
demonstrating that he knew that Mr. Kulas had the right to decline accepting the physical
summons, told Mr. Kulas that if he didn’t have the summons, he wouldn’t know his court date,
and then when he missed his court date, a warrant would issue for his arrest.
37. Mr. Kulas said that was fine. He informed them that he would have his attorney find out the
court date and ensure he showed up as necessary. He told the officers they could keep his ID
as well.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 35
7
38. Defendant Park ignored this and charged at Mr. Kulas, in an effort to physically force Mr.
Kulas to take the summons. Mr. Kulas, reasonably fearing for his safety, began backing up and
saying “no, no, no.”
39. As a legal matter, Defendant Park had at this point completed personal service on Mr. Kulas.
He had attempted to hand the summons to Mr. Kulas who was properly identified to him and
he had explained the potential consequences (not knowing his court date) of not taking the
summons with him. At this point, if Mr. Kulas didn’t want to take the document, that was Mr.
Kulas’s right and choice.
40. Rather than leave Mr. Kulas alone and move on, however, Defendant Park decided to escalate
the encounter by aggressively and menacingly pursuing after Mr. Kulas (who was walking
away) and deploying excessive physical violence.
41. Defendant Park crumpled up the summons and then, advancing on Mr. Kulas, tried to jam it
into the front pocket of Mr. Kulas’s blazer. Mr. Kulas backed away from Park as he did so,
repeatedly saying “no, no.”
42. It is worth noting that at this juncture:
a. No one had told Mr. Kulas he was not free to leave.
b. Since the summons was completed and offered to Mr. Kulas, Mr. Kulas was in fact free
to leave.
c. Mr. Kulas had not, in the seconds since the summons was completed and offered to
him, committed any new offense for which he could be detained or seized.
d. No officer on scene had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Mr.
Kulas had, since the trespass summons had been completed, committed any new
offense justifying any form of detention or use of force.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 35
8
e. Mr. Kulas in fact had not committed any new offense or engaged in any type of conduct
justifying any form of detention or use of force.
43. Despite the foregoing realities, Defendant Park then grabbed the walking-away Mr. Kulas from
behind, by the collar of his jacket, and attempted to slam him to the ground. Mr. Kulas was
initially able to save himself from slamming into the ground by stumbling/walking backwards.
But it did not last long.
44. Defendant Park, not letting go of Mr. Kulas’s jacket and now attempting to wrench Mr. Kulas’s
wrist back behind him in a painful rear wristlock maneuver, continued attempting to slam Mr.
Kulas to the pavement and within a couple seconds of further assaults upon Mr. Kulas’s person,
he successfully did so.
45. Mr. Kulas cried out in pain. Multiple other FCPS officers joined in the assault.
46. Defendant Officer Hanzlicek watched Defendant Park’s unlawful takedown of Mr. Kulas and
was personally aware of all the facts and circumstances which made it obviously a wrongful
seizure and excessive force. Rather than intervene to stop this, however, he immediately joined
in and assisted in the endeavor.
47. Defendant Hanzlicek grabbed Mr. Kulas’s left arm and began violently twisting it backwards
and out to inflict extreme pain on the helpless Mr. Kulas. He also put his knee into Mr. Kulas’s
back, making it hard for Mr. Kulas to breathe.
48. All of the FCPS officers began yelling out “stop resisting” at Mr. Kulas while he was on his
stomach and they were attacking his helpless person.
49. It should be noted that not one of these officers had informed Mr. Kulas he was under arrest.
50. At least four FCPS officers piled on top of Mr. Kulas’s body on the pavement. Mr. Kulas
continued to cry out in pain, shock, confusion, and terror.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 35
9
51. Defendant Park then slammed Mr. Kulas’s head into the pavement, causing him pain and
disorientation:
52. The officers rolled Mr. Kulas onto his back. They had both of his hands in their hands. Then
they ordered him to roll onto his stomach (while not letting go of his hands or getting their
weight off of his legs and stomach).
53. Defendant Park next used his entire forearm to choke Mr. Kulas. While choking Mr. Kulas,
Park then grabbed his pepper spray. He told Mr. Kulas “comply or force will be used against
you.”
54. Mr. Kulas was not resisting (anything) and in fact had not yet received any order he was
physically able to comply with.
55. Mr. Kulas, utterly helpless, just laid there.
56. Defendant Officer Hanzlicek knowingly applied violent and painful physical force to the
helpless Mr. Kulas to assist Defendant Officer Park in physically attacking Mr. Kulas as
retaliation for his earlier comments criticizing their actions.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 35
10
57. Defendant Officer Hanzlicek knew he had a duty to intervene to stop this continued wrongful
assault upon Mr. Kulas. Later, when interviewed by FCPS Internal Affairs’ unit regarding
failure to intervene during this event, Defendant Hanzlicek stated that since Park had slightly
more experience than him, he decided he’d just assume that “Officer Park had a plan.”
58. Officer Park used one arm to choke Mr. Kulas and his other hand to position his pepper spray
to spray directly into Mr. Kulas’s eyes:
59. While all the officers had Mr. Kulas choked and held down on his back, Defendant Park
bizarrely demanded that Mr. Kulas “turn over.” This was physically impossible and Park knew
it, by virtue of his arm choking Mr. Kulas’s neck alone. Mr. Kulas responded, “Are you serious
right now?”
60. In response, Defendant Park sprayed his pepper spray directly into the restrained and helpless
Mr. Kulas’s eyes. He did this from just 1-2 inches away from Mr. Kulas’s face.
61. FCPS officers receive training on how to safely use OC (oleoresin capsicum) or “pepper spray”
on individuals. They learn in that training that they should never shoot pepper spray directly
into someone’s eyes from any distance closer than 3 feet due to a substantial risk of causing
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 35
11
serious bodily injury. The risk of serious bodily injury is caused by the “hydraulic needling
effect,” which is where particulates from the spray become permanently embedded in the
eyeball.
62. Defendant Park received this training and, with knowing disregard for the health and safety of
Mr. Kulas, sprayed OC spray directly into his eyes from just inches away anyway.
63. Mr. Kulas nearly lost consciousness from the amount of pain this inflicted. He suffered burns
all over his face and on his eyes. He began crying and begging for help.
64. The officers continued physically assaulting Mr. Kulas on the cement as his body laid there,
limp.
65. After putting Mr. Kulas in handcuffs, one of the officers announced (for the first time) that Mr.
Kulas was under arrest.
66. This is what Mr. Kulas’s face looked like just seconds afterward:
67. The officers next made no effort to obtain medical aid for Mr. Kulas, or to otherwise flush his
eyes out, for over ten minutes.
68. As a result, Mr. Kulas’s pain continued to increase, his face and continued to swell, and his
eyes swelled shut, rendering him blind. Here is how he looked after two minutes:
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 35
12
69. Mr. Kulas begged the officers to get him water or milk to flush his eyes. He repeatedly told
them he was in pain and had gone blind. They ignored him and did nothing to alleviate his
suffering. They left him sitting in handcuffs on a bench on the sidewalk for all to see, ensuring
that in addition to all this horrific pain and suffering that Mr. Kulas was further humiliated in
public for as long as possible.
70. The pepper spray was also in Mr. Kulas’s nose and throat. While moaning in pain and crying,
he began to spit and dry heave.
71. The officers charged Mr. Kulas with the additional offenses of Obstructing a Peace Officer and
Resisting Arrest. They took him to jail.
72. All of the charges against Mr. Kulas were ultimately dismissed.
73. Mr. Kulas was wearing contacts when Defendant Park sprayed pepper spray directly into his
eyes. Contacts can trap harmful particles from pepper spray in the eye and because they
interfere with the eye’s ability to clean itself, they generally make the painful effects of the
spray and the damage it inflicts far worse.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 35
13
74. Not one FCPS officer asked Mr. Kulas if he had contacts in or attempted to remove his contacts
for him. As a result, Mr. Kulas was forced to sit for an extended period of time, including being
transported to the jail, with his contacts still trapping the pepper spray in his eyes, causing
needless continuation of his severe pain, burning, and blindness.
75. Mr. Kulas was detained at the jail for over 36 hours. While there he was functionally blind and
in complete agony from continued burning, swelling, tearing, and filled with terror that the
damage Defendant Park had inflicted upon him would become permanent.
76. After finally being released from the jail, Mr. Kulas could not drive or function due to the
ongoing swelling, tearing, and blindness. He could not work for 3 days. He had no one to take
care of him at home. He stayed at home in pain, suffering, functionally blind, his eyes
continuing to burn ceaselessly, while praying that his vision wouldn’t be permanently
damaged.
77. After a few days, the swelling and burning went down and Mr. Kulas’s vision slowly returned.
However, it was not the same vision that he had before. A permanent haze had developed in
his vision. Everything he looked at had a slight cloudiness to it. This impact to his vision was
permanent. To this day, two years later, there remains a slight cloudiness to Mr. Kulas’s vision
that was not there prior to Defendant Park’s attack.
78. Mr. Kulas filed a complaint with FCPS for excessive force against Defendant Officer Park.
79. FCPS’s professional standards unit informed Mr. Kulas they would investigate his claim.
Several months later, they informed Mr. Kulas that the result of their investigation was
“exoneration” of Defendant Officer Park and that they had found nothing wrong with Park’s
actions.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 35
14
80. Utilizing Colorado’s open record laws, Mr. Kulas’s counsel requested a copy of the
investigative report that had made these “exoneration” findings. A copy of this report is
attached as Exhibit 3 and incorporated into the factual allegations detailed in this Complaint.
81. Incredibly, the 29-page report openly admitted that the Defendant officers had no lawful reason
to detain or use force on Mr. Kulas. Internal affairs plainly found multiple policy violations by
the officers, both with respect to the unlawful seizure and with respect to the excessive force
utilized. For example, from Internal Affairs’ report:
and:
and:
82. One would think that an Internal Affairs investigative report into a complaint of officer
misconduct containing passages like those in the paragraph above would have to conclude with
findings of policy violations and indicating that the misconduct allegations were sustained.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 14 of 35
15
83. Yet, with no lawful basis for doing so, FCPS redacted those findings from the report before
disclosing it to Mr. Kulas’s counsel. As a result, the pages of the report containing the
conclusions and findings of Internal Affairs investigator Lieutenant Sara Lynd look like this:
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 15 of 35
16
84. IA investigator Lieutenant Lynd sent this report and findings up the entire chain of command
at FCPS, all the way up to and including Chief Jeffrey Swoboda.
85. Of course (see infra), it was and is long-standing FCPS practice and custom to model, condone,
and ratify the use of violent takedowns and deployment of excessive force on helpless
individuals. So rather than accept the inescapable findings made by their own Internal Affairs
Unit, FCPS chain of command including Chief Swoboda elected to instead redact Lynd’s
findings and conclusions from the report and replace them – without explanation – with
conclusory statements indicating that Defendant Park had been “EXONERATED” from the
misconduct complaints:
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 16 of 35
17
86. Shortly after “exonerating” Defendant Park and openly ratifying his multiple policy and law
violations in this case, Defendant FCPS chain of command and Chief Swoboda awarded
Defendant Park the “Medal of Merit” in a large televised ceremony:
87. Upon information and belief, shortly after she issued her IA report and findings of misconduct
against Defendant Park in this case, FCPS chain of command pulled Lieutenant Sara Lynd out
of the Professional Standards Unit and reassigned her to the Crimes Against Persons Detective
Unit so that they would not have to deal anymore with the mess of her actually doing her job
and identifying FCPS officers’ policy and civil rights violations in her written reports.
PATTERN OF USING EXCESSIVE FORCE ON NON-THREATENING INDIVIDUALS:
Defendant Fort Collins’s policies, customs, practices, and/or lack of adequate training and
supervision caused the violations of Mr. Kulas’s civil rights
88. As witnessed supra and as detailed below, it is the custom and actual practice of FCPS to
model, ratify, and condone the use of excessive force by FCPS officers. As a result, it has
become customary among FCPS officers to use unjustified and excessive force on non-
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 17 of 35
18
threatening individuals because FCPS has communicated to its officers that such force is
authorized, and, indeed, expected and when used will be defended and covered up by the
supervisory and municipal apparatus of the City.
89. In fact, that is exactly what happened in this case. Defendant Park ignored his training
regarding the risk of serious bodily injury presented by spraying OC spray into a person’s eyes
from inches away and did it to Mr. Kulas anyway. FCPS “investigated” this event and still
found no misconduct on Park’s part. Defendant Park ignored his training and the law he knew
regarding Mr. Kulas being free to leave and Park having no lawful basis to take him down to
the pavement or otherwise seize or detain him. FCPS “investigated” that behavior and still
found no misconduct on his part. In fact, FCPS, following their internal “investigation,”
informed Mr. Kulas (without explanation) that they had “exonerated” Defendant Park with
respect to Mr. Kulas’s complaints of excessive force and misconduct.
90. FCPS’s “exoneration” of Defendant Park despite his clear violation of training, policy, and
deliberate infliction of pain and suffering upon Mr. Kulas exacerbated Mr. Kulas’s damages
and caused him to suffer even more trauma.
91. FCPS officers have repeatedly used excessive force against individuals like Mr. Kulas who
presented no threat to officers. For instance, in December of 2013, FCPS officers similarly
brutalized Stanley Cropp, an eighty-year-old man with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Mr.
Cropp was aggressively, unjustifiably, and unreasonably tackled by FCPS officers while taking
a walk in his neighborhood. Mr. Cropp was taken to Larimer County jail. The excessive force
claims against the City of Fort Collins and FCPS settled for $113,000.
92. In another case in 2016, FCPS officers similarly used excessive force against another member
of the community. On or about October 20, 2016, FCPS officers seized Dakota McGrath, who
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 18 of 35
19
was suspected of third degree assault, a misdemeanor. Mr. McGrath, who had gotten out of his
car and was walking in an alleyway, had earbuds in and did not hear the officer approach. The
officer caught up to Mr. McGrath and struck him in the head or neck with a steel baton, causing
Mr. McGrath to fall to the ground, unconscious. Mr. McGrath regained consciousness but
remained on the ground, dazed, when the officer struck Mr. McGrath’s leg several times with
the baton, fracturing his leg in several places. On information and belief, the case was settled
for an undisclosed amount.
93. In July of 2016, FCPS were called to Enan Joe Heneghan’s house for a noise complaint. Mr.
Heneghan turned down the music. The officer proceeded to search Mr. Heneghan’s house
without a warrant and without his consent, and unlawfully and unreasonably pepper sprayed
him in the face when he refused to show officers his ID. The City of Fort Collins settled Mr.
Heneghan’s case for $150,000.
94. On December 3, 2016, Sean Slatton was ordered to leave his girlfriend’s sorority party after
being falsely accused of bringing a flask. FCPS officer Hopkins instructed Mr. Slatton to leave,
and Mr. Slatton calmly and immediately complied. Mr. Slatton stood outside to order a ride
service to drive him to his hotel. Two FCPS officers (Hopkins and Barnes) followed him
outside and told him he needed to leave the entire property and could not wait on or near it for
his ride. Mr. Slatton replied “ok, I will [leave]” but instead of permitting him to do so, Hopkins
and Barnes demanded to see his identification. Mr. Slatton refused and walked away because
he had not committed a crime and so that he could comply with officer Hopkins’s original
order to leave. Upon reaching the sidewalk, Hopkins told Mr. Slatton he was under arrest,
and without provocation, struck him in the leg with a baton and pepper sprayed him in
the face.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 19 of 35
20
95. On April 6, 2017, Michaella Surat was outside a bar in Fort Collins celebrating her 22nd
birthday when police officers were called regarding an altercation inside the bar. When Ms.
Surat approached officers who were speaking with her boyfriend, one officer told her to “back
off” and pushed her shoulder. Ms. Surat told the officer not to touch her. The officer then
grabbed and held onto Ms. Surat’s wrist and put her in a rear wristlock hold. Ms. Surat
repeatedly asked the officer why he was touching her and what she did wrong. The officer
responded by slamming Ms. Surat face-first to the ground – clearly an excessive use of force
on someone who posed no danger to the officer. Ms. Surat’s chin slammed into the sidewalk,
causing a concussion, cervical strain, and a large and painful contusion on her chin.
96. After video footage of Ms. Surat’s encounter with FCPS surfaced, FCPS spokesperson Kate
Kimble told the media that the officer used “standard arrest control,” ratifying and making
explicit Fort Collins’ custom and practice of use of excessive force.
97. On October 6, 2017, an FCPS officer accosted Kimberly Chancellor apparently because she
did not get her ID out of her purse quickly enough. He threw her face-down on the asphalt and
then, while she was prone on the ground not resisting or threatening him in any way, the officer
pinned her to the ground with his knee and bodyweight on his back.
98. On March 29, 2018, FCPS officers used excessive force against Natasha Patnode, a woman
accused of shoplifting at a Target store. An FCPS officer struck Ms. Patnode more than 60
times with his fist or baton while she was already on the ground and restrained. Another FCPS
officer arrived and the officers tased Ms. Patnode multiple times, also while she was already
on the ground and restrained. The FCPC officers’ use of force blatantly violated the Fourth
Amendment’s requirement that use of force on citizens be reasonable.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 20 of 35
21
99. On April 10, 2023, FCPS officers used excessive force against Christopher Finn by tasing him
in the back when they saw him run away. At the time FCPS officers tased Mr. Finn, all they
knew was that he matched the description in terms of clothing items he was wearing of
someone who had just been reported to have shoplifted a $49 pair of pants from Dick’s
Sporting Goods store. Shoplifting an item worth $49 is a petty offense in Colorado. FCPS
officer Kilcoyne approached Mr. Finn outside the store and asked him how he was doing and
if he had ID on him. He did not tell Mr. Finn he was detained, under arrest, or not free to leave.
Mr. Finn said he did not have his ID and then attempted to run away. Officer Kilcoyne
immediately pulled out his Taser as he gave chase and within four seconds, without uttering a
single word (not “stop,” not “you’re under arrest,” not “you will be tased”), tased him in the
back while Mr. Finn was running in a parking lot at a full sprint. The tase caused Mr. Finn
to suffer complete neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) immediately, which sent his body and
face straight down into the pavement without the use his hands to break his fall. Mr. Finn
suffered a broken nose, a horrifically bloodied face requiring several stitches to close, a severe
concussion and TBI, cracked sternum, and multiple bloody contusions to his arms. Upon
information and belief, this use of force was reviewed by FCPS’s chain of command and
ratified despite the multiple obvious policy and civil rights violations seen in the video.
100. At the time of Defendant Park’s and Hanzlicek’s assault on Mr. Kulas, Defendant Fort
Collins knew or had constructive knowledge, based on its history and widespread practice of
its officers using excessive force on non-threatening individuals and its condoning of those
actions, that its officers would utilize excessive and unnecessary force against people like Mr.
Kulas.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 21 of 35
22
101. Because Defendant Fort Collins created and tolerate a custom of deliberate indifference
and has continuously failed, despite the obvious need to do so, to adequately train and supervise
FCPS officers in these areas, citizens, including Mr. Kulas, have repeatedly been subjected to
excessive force and violations of their constitutional rights.
102. Defendant Fort Collins has fostered a policy of inaction and/or express ratification of its
officers routinely violating citizens’ constitutional rights, which constitutes the functional
equivalent of a decision by Fort Collins itself to violate the Constitution.
103. FCPS’s persistent and repeated failure to discipline its officers for their similar uses of
excessive force reflects a custom, policy, or practice of encouraging, tolerating, and/or
ratifying blatantly illegal and improper conduct. These encouragements, toleration of, and
ratifications demonstrate that such police misconduct is carried out pursuant to the policies of
and regiment of training provided by Fort Collins, and that such conduct is customary within
FCPS.
104. FCPS’s deliberate and conscious failure to correct prior constitutional violations based on
similar conduct constituted an affirmative choice to ratify the conduct, and to send a clear
message in doing so to its law enforcement officers that such misconduct is acceptable and
approved. It is Fort Collins’ responsibility to properly train its officers to ensure they perform
their duties correctly and to discipline, rather than ratify and encourage, their improper
conduct, so that officers can learn from theirs and others behavior and perform their jobs
lawfully moving forward, and be deterred from engaging in misconduct that violates the
constitutional rights of people with whom the police interact. Fort Collins’ failure to do so has
clearly communicated to FCPS’s officers, including Defendant Park, that excessive force is
authorized and tacitly or explicitly encouraged.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 22 of 35
23
105. Fort Collins’ past ratification and toleration of similar illegal conduct thus caused and was
the moving force behind Defendant Park’s use of excessive force against Mr. Kulas.
Defendant Fort Collins is liable for Defendant Park’s violation of Mr. Kulas’s rights
106. The unlawful conduct of FCPS officers, as set forth in detail herein, amounts to a custom
and widespread practice so pervasive and well-established as to constitute a custom or usage
with the force of law.
107. Given FCPS’s history and widespread practice of officers using excessive force, Fort
Collins knew of the need to provide additional or better training and supervision in this respect
and made a deliberate choice to not adequately train or supervise its officers in avoiding the
use of excessive force.
108. Fort Collins knew or should have known that its acts or omissions in this regard were
substantially certain to cause FCPS officers to violate individuals’ constitutional rights, and it
consciously or deliberately chose to disregard this obvious risk of harm in adhering to its policy
and custom of failing to provide adequate, additional, or better training and supervision to
FCPS officers regarding how to avoid excessive force.
109. Defendant Fort Collins was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,
because Fort Collins knew that individuals in Mr. Kulas’s position would be at a substantial
risk of suffering dangerous consequences from Fort Collins’ failure to properly train and
supervise its employees.
110. Defendant Fort Collins could have and should have pursued reasonable methods for the
training and supervising of such employees, or for disciplining them if they engaged in
misconduct, but it intentionally chose not to do so, instead going the route of regularly ratifying
and approving of such observably unlawful misconduct.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 23 of 35
24
111. Defendant Fort Collins’s policy of failing to act in the face of a history of excessive force
against citizens, and its custom, policy, and practice in failing to properly train and supervise
its employees despite such history and knowledge or constructive knowledge of such history,
were the moving force and proximate cause of Defendant Park’s violation of Mr. Kulas’s
constitutional rights.
112. Defendant Fort Collins’s custom, policy, and practice of encouraging, condoning,
tolerating, and ratifying excessive force, as described herein, and the subsequent cover-ups of
such constitutional violations, were the moving force behind and the proximate cause of,
Defendant Parks’s violation of Mr. Kulas’s constitutional rights.
113. Defendant Fort Collins’s acts or omissions caused Mr. Kulas damages in that he suffered
physical and mental pain, humiliation, fear, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, and sense of
security and individual dignity, among other injuries, damages, and losses.
114. Defendant Fort Collins’s actions, as described herein, deprived Mr. Kulas of the rights,
privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of
America and the Colorado state constitution, and caused him other damages.
115. All of the acts described herein were done by Defendant Park intentionally, knowingly,
willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and/or recklessly in disregard of Mr. Kulas’s state- and
federally-protected constitutional rights, and were done pursuant to the preexisting,
deliberately indifferent official custom, policy, practice, training, and supervision provided to
its officers by FCPS.
116. Plaintiff experienced physical pain, trauma and suffering as a result of the Defendants’
unlawful conduct and violations of his civil rights.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 24 of 35
25
117. Plaintiff also suffered impairment of reputation, personal humiliation, mental anguish, and
suffering by virtue of the unlawful actions of these Defendants as set forth herein, for which
he is entitled to compensation.
118. All of the Defendants’ actions as described herein were taken under color of state law.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 4th Amendment Violation – False Arrest/Imprisonment (Arrest
Without Warrant or Probable Cause)
(against Defendants Park, Hanzlicek, and Fort Collins)
DEFENDANT PARK
119. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
120. When Defendant Park offered Mr. Kulas the summons and Mr. Kulas refused to accept it,
there existed at that time neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to detain or use force
with Mr. Kulas.
121. It was within Mr. Kulas’s rights to decline to physically hold onto the summons that
Defendant Park had served on him, and he was entirely free to walk away from the encounter,
which he attempted to do.
122. Defendant Park however, hellbent on retaliating against Mr. Kulas for him being critical
of the police and not accepting the summons he had served on him, decided to pursue and
attack Mr. Kulas. This was a warrantless seizure and arrest of Mr. Kulas, made without
probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) for such seizure, in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 25 of 35
26
123. Defendant Park knew that Mr. Kulas had committed no new crime or offense after being
handed the summons for the petty trespass, and he similarly knew that FCPS possessed no
probable cause to believe that Mr. Kulas had in those few seconds committed a new criminal
offense, and yet he arrested and unlawfully seized him anyway, with deliberate indifference to
Mr. Kulas’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
124. Defendant Park’s sudden seizure and assault on Mr. Kulas caused him to experience great
physical pain and terror. The experience of this event caused and continues to cause Mr. Kulas
trauma and emotional distress.
DEFENDANT AVERY HANZLICEK
125. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
126. Defendant Hanzlicek observed Defendant Park attempt to unlawfully seize Mr. Kulas with
no lawful justification for doing so.
127. Defendant Hanzlicek observed Defendant Park utilize reckless force and dangerous
unapproved takedown methods to tackle Mr. Kulas to the pavement without justification.
128. Defendant Hanzlicek knew and had observed that Mr. Kulas was not a threat to the officers
and, at the time he was initially attacked by Defendant Park, was free to leave and in fact was
walking away from the officers.
129. Defendant Hanzlicek knew that he was required by FCPS policy and Colorado law to
intervene to prevent Defendant Park from attacking and conducting a lawless, retaliatory arrest
upon Mr. Kulas.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 26 of 35
27
130. Rather than abide either of those duties, Defendant Hanzlicek elected to personally assist
Defendant Park in both unlawfully seizing Mr. Kulas and in utilizing extreme excessive force
to unlawfully seize him.
131. Defendant Hanzlicek had more than reasonable opportunity to speak up and stop Defendant
Park’s attack. Instead of speaking up, he helped Park in the attack.
132. If Defendant Hanzlicek had said or done anything to intervene or stop Defendant Park’s
behavior, it would have saved Mr. Kulas from suffering the horrific physical and psychological
injuries he did in this incident.
DEFENDANT FORT COLLINS
133. Defendant City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and municipality incorporated
under the laws of the State of Colorado for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the Fort Collins Police Services is a department of the City of Fort Collins. Defendant City of
Fort Collins enforces local and state law through its law enforcement agency, the Fort Collins
Police Services (“FCPS”).
134. Defendant Fort Collins had a duty to train and supervise Defendant Park.
135. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Fort Collins employed and was
responsible for the promulgation of policies, customs, practices and training of FCPS
personnel, including Officer Park.
136. Defendant Fort Collins was aware that its officers regularly arrested citizens without
probable cause and did nothing to remedy or stop it. To the contrary, FCPS would instead
condone and ratify such misconduct after the fact, making it more likely to occur in the future.
137. Both Fort Collins’s failure to supervise and train Park, as well as its aforementioned
unconstitutional customs/practices, were the moving force behind Mr. Kulas’s wrongful arrest.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 27 of 35
28
138. Defendant Fort Collins’ actions and omissions violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional
rights, and were a substantial and significant contributing cause and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s damages.
139. Defendant Fort Collins did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that their actions
and omissions in failing to adequately train and supervise FCPS officers in this area was lawful.
140. The Defendants’ conduct proximately caused injuries, damages, and losses to Mr. Kulas.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Section 13-21-131, C.R.S. – Arrest Without Probable Cause
Violation of Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 7
(against Defendants Park, Hanzlicek)
141. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
142. Section 13-21-131 of the Colorado Revised Statutes directs that any peace officer who
“subjects or causes to be subjected, including failure to intervene, any other person to the
deprivation of any individual rights … secured by the bill of rights, article II of the state
constitution is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate
relief.”
143. Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorneys fees do
not apply to claims brought pursuant to § 13-21-131.
144. Defendant Park was a police officer under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-31-901(3), employed by
the City of Fort Collins and its Police Department at the time he wrongfully seized, arrested
and maliciously prosecuted Mr. Kulas.
145. Once Mr. Kulas the summons for petty trespass was offered to him and refused,
Defendant Park knew he did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion or any
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 28 of 35
29
other legally valid basis to believe that Mr. Kulas had committed, was committing, or was
about to commit any new crime.
146. Defendant Park admitted this when interviewed by FCPS’s Professional Standards
Unit for the internal investigation into his conduct in this case.
147. Defendant Officer Park nevertheless decided to unreasonably seized and arrested Mr.
Kulas, in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
148. Officer Park did not at any time have a warrant authorizing his seizure or arrest of Mr.
Kulas.
149. Officer Park violated Mr. Kulas’s state constitutional rights by engaging in an unlawful
seizure of Mr. Kulas that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances
confronting him before, during and after his encounter with Mr. Kulas.
150. Officer Hanzlicek violated Mr. Kulas’s state constitutional rights by assisting and
personally participating in Park’s unlawful seizure of Mr. Kulas and failing to intervene to stop
that unlawful seizure, which he knew to be objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting him before, during, and after his encounter with Mr. Kulas.
151. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek knowingly violated Mr. Kulas’s individual rights as
secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution.
152. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that
their actions in seizing Plaintiff without probable cause or reasonable suspicion was lawful.
153. The actions and omissions of the Defendants Park and Hanzlicek were the moving force
behind, and the proximate cause of, injuries sustained by Mr. Kulas.
154. Defendant Park’s and Hanzlicek’s wrongful arrest and humiliation of Mr. Kulas caused
him to experience extraordinary stress, expense, depression, terror and anxiety. The experience
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 29 of 35
30
of this event caused and continues to cause Mr. Kulas trauma and emotional distress, loss of
any feeling of safety or security, along with other damages and injuries described herein.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 4th Amendment Violation – Excessive Force
(against Defendants Park, Hanzlicek, and Fort Collins)
DEFENDANTS PARK AND HANZLICEK
155. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
156. Defendant Park’s arrest of Mr. Kulas, in addition to being wrongful and unlawful, also
utilized excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
157. No officer would consider Defendant Park’s sudden and unannounced deployment of
painful force upon Mr. Kulas – grabbing the back of his jacket, swinging his body to the
ground, slamming his head into the pavement, choking him with his forearm across Mr.
Kulas’s neck, and then spraying pepper spray directly into Mr. Kulas’s eyes from just two
inches away for several seconds – to have been reasonable or justified under the circumstances.
158. Defendant Hanzlicek personally participated in and materially assisted with Defendant
Park’s use of excessive force upon Mr. Kulas knowing that it was a violation of Mr. Kulas’s
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
159. Defendant Park effected this assault and injury to Mr. Kulas with deliberate indifference
to Mr. Kulas’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
160. Defendant Park’s and Hanzlicek’s sudden seizure and attack upon Mr. Kulas caused him
to experience great physical pain, suffering, and terror. The experience of this event caused
and continues to cause Mr. Kulas trauma, permanent damage to his vision, and emotional
distress.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 30 of 35
31
DEFENDANT FORT COLLINS
161. Defendant City of Fort Collins is a governmental entity and municipality incorporated
under the laws of the State of Colorado for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the Fort Collins Police Services is a department of the City of Fort Collins. Defendant City of
Fort Collins enforces local and state law through its law enforcement agency, the Fort Collins
Police Services (“FCPS”).
162. Defendant Fort Collins had a duty to train and supervise Defendant Park and his fellow
officers.
163. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant City of Fort Collins employed and was
responsible for the promulgation of policies, customs, practices and training of FCPS
personnel, including Officers Park and Hanzlicek.
164. Defendant Fort Collins was aware that its officers regularly arrested citizens using
excessive force and did nothing to remedy or stop it. To the contrary, FCPS would instead
condone and ratify brutal excessive force activity after the fact, making it more likely to occur
in the future.
165. Both Fort Collins’ failure to supervise and train Park, as well as its aforementioned
unconstitutional customs and practices, were the moving force behind Mr. Kulas’s wrongful
arrest and injuries.
166. Defendant Fort Collins’ actions and omissions violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional
rights, and were a substantial and significant contributing cause and proximate cause of
Plaintiff’s damages.
167. Defendant Fort Collins did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that their actions
and omissions in failing to adequately train and supervise FCPS officers in this area was lawful.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 31 of 35
32
168. The Defendants’ conduct proximately caused injuries, damages, and losses to Mr. Kulas.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Section 13-21-131, C.R.S. – Excessive Force
Violation of Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 7
(against Defendants Park and Hanzlicek)
169. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
170. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek acted under color of state law and within the course and
scope of their employment as FCPS police officers at all times relevant to the allegations in
this Complaint.
171. At all relevant times, Defendants Park and Hanzlicek were “peace officers” under § 24-31-
901(3), C.R.S. and were employed by a local government.
172. Plaintiff Mr. Kulas had a protected interest under the Colorado Constitution, article II, § 7
in being secure in his person from excessive force by law enforcement personnel.
173. Officers Park and Hanzlicek employed excessive force on Mr. Kulas by means that
included but were not limited to, shoving him, grabbing him, tackling him, choking him,
slamming his head into pavement, kneeing him, painfully twisting his arms behind his back,
spraying pepper spray directly into his eyes from inches away, handcuffing him, and detaining
him, in violation of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
174. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek did not have a warrant authorizing their seizure of Mr.
Kulas.
175. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek had no reasonable basis to believe Mr. Kulas posed a threat
of harm to the officers or anyone else. In fact, at the time the various forms of excessive force
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 32 of 35
33
were employed against Mr. Kulas, Mr. Kulas was walking away and/or fully restrained and/or
completely helpless.
176. The force used against Mr. Kulas by Defendants Park and Hanzlicek, as described herein,
was objectively unreasonable and excessive.
177. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek subjected or caused Mr. Kulas to be subjected to the
deprivation of individual rights secured by the bill of rights of the Colorado Constitution.
178. Defendants Park and Hanzlicek did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that
their actions in using unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. Kulas were lawful.
179. The acts or omissions of Defendants Park and Hanzlicek were the moving force behind
and the proximate cause of injuries sustained by Mr. Kulas.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of First Amendment – Retaliation for Exercise of First
Amendment
(against Defendant Park)
180. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this claim.
181. It is clearly established that an act taken by law enforcement in retaliation for the exercise
of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
182. Mr. Kulas had a First Amendment right to criticize FCPS officers and to walk away after
being offered the completed summons for petty offense trespass.
183. Defendant Park’s decision to grab Mr. Kulas, subject him to a painful wristlock maneuver
without warning, shove him, swing tackle him to the ground by grabbing the back of his jacket,
choke him, and then spray from just two inches away pepper spray directly into Mr. Kulas’s
open eyes were plainly actions taken in retaliation for Mr. Kulas exercising his First
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 33 of 35
34
Amendment right to free speech. Defendant Park retaliated upon Mr. Kulas with excessive and
painful force, as well as an unlawful and unconstitutional search/seizure.
184. Defendant Park’s malicious retaliation continued when he charged Mr. Kulas with the
misdemeanor offenses of Resisting Arrest and Obstruction, which he knew Mr. Kulas had not
committed and which he intended Mr. Kulas to go to jail for.
185. The actions as described herein, taken in retaliation against Mr. Kulas for his exercise of
First Amendment rights, while proximately causing and contributing to the various damages
already outlined above, also proximately caused Mr. Kulas to suffer separate and independent
additional damages in the form of chilling his freedom of speech right by foreseeably causing
him to ever exercise it again in the presence of law enforcement. Indeed, Mr. Kulas remains
abruptly and wholly terrified to this day of any interaction with law enforcement, and of
speaking against any officer he encounters, out of the fear and trauma instilled in him by
Defendant Park’s retaliatory actions taken that day.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mr. Kulas respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
his favor and against the Defendants and grant:
a. Appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief;
b. 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;
c. All economic losses on all claims allowed by law;
d. Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be determined at trial;
e. Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action on all claims allowed by law;
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 34 of 35
35
f. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and
g. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by
law.
VII. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff requests a trial to a jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of August, 2023.
THE LIFE & LIBERTY LAW OFFICE
s/ Sarah Schielke
Sarah Schielke
Counsel for Plaintiff
The Life & Liberty Law Office LLC
1209 Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
P: (970) 493-1980
F: (970) 797-4008
E: sarah@lifeandlibertylaw.com
HALTZMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
/s/ Matthew Haltzman
Matthew A. Haltzman
Counsel for Plaintiff
Haltzman Law Firm PC
204 Maple St. Unit 101
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Phone Number: (970) 692-3440
Matthew@haltzmanlaw.com
Case No. 1:23-cv-02187-KAS Document 1 filed 08/27/23 USDC Colorado pg 35 of 35