Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JUSTIN LECHEMINANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
LLC and Christopher Decker of THE LAW OFFICES OF DECKER & JONES LLC, hereby submits his
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages against each of the Defendants for violating Mr.
Lecheminant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 42
U.S.C. §1983.
1
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24
$75,000), 1343, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 (for attorneys’ fees and costs),
the events described occurred in Colorado, and all of the parties were residents of or maintained
III. PARTIES
4. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Plaintiff Justin
Lecheminant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado.
6. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Mark Duran
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Duran is the a Lead Investigator and Detective with the
Denver Police Department and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Duran is sued in
7. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Troy Sandoval
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Sandoval is a Sergeant with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Sandoval is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Brian Pacelko
2
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Pacelko is a Sergeant with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Pacelko is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
9. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Daniel Felkins
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Felkins is a Corporal with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Felkins is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
10. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Robert Blanc
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Blanc is an officer with the Denver Police Department and
was acting under color of state law. Defendant Blanc is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
11. On January 1, 2019, Justin Lecheminant was driving home when he was stopped
12. Mr. Lecheminant was stopped for driving without his headlights on in a well-lit,
residential neighborhood.
13. Mr. Lecheminant provided Defendant Felkins with his valid driver’s license;
however, once Defendant Felkins asked Mr. Lecheminant to step out of his vehicle, Mr.
14. As he watched Mr. Lecheminant drive away, Defendant Felkins informed dispatch
that Mr. Lecheminant left the scene but forgot his license, which was in Defendant Felkins’ hand
and listed a home address for Mr. Lecheminant just blocks away from where Defendant Felkins
3
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24
15. Defendant Felkins further advised dispatch that he was not going to follow Mr.
Lecheminant because he believed that Mr. Lecheminant was headed home. Defendant Felkins
16. As other patrol cars began to case the area, Mr. Lecheminant was spotted parking
17. Defendant Felkins got out of his patrol car to meet Mr. Lecheminant at the gate of
18. When Mr. Lecheminant attempted to walk past Defendant Felkins with a bottle of
tequila in his hands, Defendant Felkins attempted to grab Mr. Lecheminant’s arm.
19. Mr. Lecheminant dodged Defendant Felkins, and in the process of doing so,
dropped the tequila bottle. Mr. Lecheminant then walked through the gate and into his fenced in
backyard.
20. As he was making his way into his gated and fenced in backyard, Mr. Lecheminant
21. It was also at this time that Defendant Blanc arrived on scene to assist Defendant
Felkins.
22. Instead of taking any steps to deescalate the situation or even assess the situation,
immediately upon arrive Defendant Blanc began to escalate the situation by repeatedly threatening
Mr. Lecheminant by stating, “Dude, you’re gonna get tased! You’re gonna get tased.”
4
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24
23. Once Mr. Lecheminant made it inside of his fenced in backyard, he turned to the
officers and continued to engage them verbally claiming that they could not come on his “private
property.”
24. Mr. Lecheminant slowly begins to back away from the officers while pointing a
finger at them saying over and over, “Get off my property. Get off my property!”
25. At no time was Mr. Lecheminant armed with any kind of weapon.
26. Defendant Blanc followed Mr. Lecheminant into the fenced in backyard pointing
the taser at him the entire time, repeatedly yelling, “You’re gonna get tased dude! You’re gonna
get tased!”
27. While simultaneously yelling, “Get on the ground or you’re gonna get tased,”
Defendant Blanc deployed his taser, which brought Mr. Lecheminant to his knees in the snow.
28. While Mr. Lecheminant was still on his knees in the snow (after being tased the
first time), Defendant Blanc ordered Mr. Lecheminant onto the ground, where he already was.
30. During the second tasing, Defendant Felkins is standing within a foot of Mr.
5
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24
31. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant had not attempted to make any
32. Mr. Lecheminant was completely stationary on his knee in the snow.
33. Defendant Blanc lied in his report indicating that “The suspect attempted to stand
up and Officer Blanc tazed him a second time, which the suspect then dropped to the ground.”
34. Upon being tased a second time, Mr. Lecheminant’s immediate and involuntary
reaction was to attempt to pull the taser prongs out of his chest.
35. Defendant Blanc then yelled, “Get on the ground face first” while sprinting at Mr.
Lecheminant and kicking him repeatedly in the face. The body worn camera shows Defendant
Blanc taking a step back three different times so that he can wind up with more force to kick Mr.
36. Prior to rushing Mr. Lecheminant, Defendant Blanc did not give Mr. Lecheminant
time to comply with his order that Mr. Lecheminant get on the ground face first.
37. Defendant Blanc used enough force in kicking Mr. Lecheminant that Mr.
Lecheminant fell backwards onto his back, as confirmed by Defendant Blanc in his report.
38. Thereafter, Defendant Blanc got on top of Mr. Lecheminant and continued to
6
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24
39. Defendant Blanc’s blows to Mr. Lecheminant’s face with significant enough to
break Mr. Lecheminant’s nose, puncture his eardrum, cause multiple broken ribs and cause Mr.
40. Although Defendant Felkins had a duty to intervene, he stood by watching until
41. Only after Defendant Blanc had broken multiple bones in Mr. Lecheminant’s face
and brutalized him did Defendant Felkins reach an arm on Defendant Blanc’s shoulder to try to
42. Throughout the beating, Mr. Lecheminant can be heard yelling, “Help! Help!
43. The severity of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries were immediately apparent: Mr.
Lecheminant’s face began to swell immediately as blood pooled around him coloring the snow
red.
44. Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries at the scene were documented by photographs and body
7
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24
45. As Mr. Lecheminant lay in the snow with broken bones to his face, a punctured ear
drum, broken ribs, a concussion and other serious bodily injuries, Defendant Blanc yelled at him,
“That’s what you get for eluding!” as he threw down his taser.
46. After the brutal beating, unarmed Mr. Lecheminant was handcuffed and forced to
lie on the freezing for several minutes although he was wearing nothing other than a tank top.
47. When Mr. Lecheminant was finally raised to his feet, he was forced to stand outside
for several more minutes while the officers waited for emergency medical personnel to arrive.
48. Recognizing the extreme amount of force used against Mr. Lecheminant by
Defendant Blanc, Defendant Felkins immediately called for an ambulance to respond and for a
49. Defendants Blanc and Felkins report to Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval within
50. As supervisors within the chain of command, Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval
have the ability to determine whether an officer used appropriate force under the circumstances,
which is why Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval responded to the scene on January 1, 2019.
8
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24
51. When Defendant Sandoval arrived on scene, he made contact with Mr.
Lecheminant, who was handcuffed and in custody of the Denver Police Department but positioned
52. Despite Mr. Lecheminant being in custody, but without informing him of his
Miranda rights, Defendant Sandoval attempted to question Mr. Lecheminant about the incident.
53. Mr. Lecheminant immediately invoked his right to an attorney, but Defendant
54. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not conduct oral interviews of
either Defendant Blanc or Defendant Felkins on body worn camera video, despite having the
55. Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko did this intentionally to ensure that Defendants
Felkins and Blanc’ reports were consistent with one another, to ensure that there were no other
eyewitnesses prior to Defendants Felkins and Blanc writing their reports and giving a statement,
and to ensure that Defendants Felkins and Blanc had an opportunity to calm down after the incident
56. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s clothing for alleged stretch marks from where Defendant Blanc alleged Mr. Lecheminant
pulled on his clothes. Defedants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s clothing because it would have been favorable to Mr. Lecheminant insomuch as there was
9
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24
57. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s fists, knuckles or boots, because that sort of documentation would provide further evidence
of Defendant Blanc’s violent and excessive use of force against Mr. Lecheminant.
58. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval did no investigation whatsoever to determine the
59. In fact, no medical records were ever obtained by the Denver Police Department of
Mr. Lecheminant’s medical condition and no follow-up inquiry was conducted to determine the
60. Defendants Pacelko, Sandoval and Duran intentionally did not investigate the
extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries because doing so would have provided evidence directly in
contrast with Defendants Blanc and Felkins narratives by demonstrating that the degree of force
used was greater than necessary to effect the arrest of Mr. Lecheminant.
61. Defendant Blanc alleged that Mr. Lecheminant cut Defendant Blanc’s finger, which
62. There was no testing done at the scene, or anytime thereafter, to confirm whether
the blood on Defendant Blanc’s hand was actually Defendant Blanc’s blood and not Mr.
Lecheminant’s blood.
10
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24
63. Upon information and belief, Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko’s investigation
ended at the scene when they took no additional action to condone Defendant Blanc and Felkins
actions.
64. Upon information and belief, Defendants Blanc and Felkins were never placed on
any administrative leave (paid or unpaid) while the use of force “investigation” was pending. This
is because Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko immediately agreed with the use of force used by
Defendant Blanc and the failure to intervene by Defendant Felkins, and ratified the
65. Defendant Duran was tasked with collecting the remaining paperwork and video
66. After collecting the paperwork and body camera footage, and reading the
statements and watching the videos, Defendant Duran, on behalf of the City of Denver, ratified the
use of force on Mr. Lecheminant. Defendant Duran recommended that the City of Denver engage
in no further investigation of the incident and Defendants Felkins and Blanc were cleared of any
misconduct.
67. Meanwhile, Mr. Lecheminant was then charged with serious felony crimes, which
68. Mr. Lecheminant was charged with four counts of Second Degree Assault on a
Peace Officer, two of the counts listed Defendant Felkins as the victim and two of the counts listed
69. The four felony charges of Second-Degree Assault on a Peace Officer carried
mandatory, consecutive prison time that Mr. Lecheminant would be forced to serve if convicted.
11
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24
convicted on four counts felony assault, Mr. Lecheminant was fired from his job by his employer.
71. Ultimately, the Denver District Attorney’s Office elected not to prosecute Mr.
Lecheminant for anything that happened at his home on January 1, 2019 and all four felony charges
72. Mr. Lecheminant did plead guilty to one count vehicular eluding and one count
obstruction for his failure to get out of his vehicle when Mr. Lecheminant was first pulled over at
73. That plea agreement contained a stipulated factual basis between the parties that
the criminal acts engaged in were those at West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard, and unrelated
to the incident involving Defendant Blanc at Mr. Lecheminant’s home later that evening.
74. Stated another way, Mr. Lecheminant was not criminally prosecuted criminally for
75. For a significant period of time after the incident, Mr. Lecheminant suffered
memory loss, confusion, disorientation and other memory and cognitive problems.
76. The physical injuries sustained by Mr. Lecheminant at the hands of Defendants
Blanc and Felkins also caused extreme emotional distress for all members of the Lecheminant
family, which resulted in additional stress, humiliation, and loss of sleep for Mr. Lecheminant.
77. Mr. Lecheminant’s disabled son was so distraught at the sight of his physical
injuries, that he had an extreme panic attack and a therapist had to be called in order to assist Mr.
Lecheminant and his wife, Susan, in calming down their disabled son.
12
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24
78. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
79. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Blanc was acting under the color of state
law, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his official duties or
employment.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
83. Mr. Lecheminant had a clearly established right to be free from the unlawful,
84. Defendant Blanc lacked any reasonable basis to use physical force against Mr.
Lecheminant.
85. Defendant Blanc utilized excessive force against Mr. Lecheminant when he tased
13
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24
86. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was outnumbered by officers.
87. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was within the confines of his
fenced in backyard.
88. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was unarmed.
89. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was not making any moves towards
90. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was facing the officers and was not
91. Defendant Blanc’s response to tase Mr. Lecheminant without attempting any other
disproportionate use of force based upon a totality of the circumstances presented to Defendant
92. Defendant Blanc knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force at the time the unlawful, excessive force was used
against him.
has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of medical expenses,
non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones, pain and suffering,
14
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24
95. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
96. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Blanc was acting under the color of state
law, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his official duties or
employment.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
100. Mr. Lecheminant had a clearly established right to be free from the unlawful,
101. Defendant Blanc lacked any reasonable basis to use physical force against Mr.
Lecheminant.
102. Defendant Blanc utilized excessive force against Mr. Lecheminant when he tased
an unarmed Mr. Lecheminant within the fenced-in confines of his backyard a second time.
15
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24
103. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still outnumbered by
officers.
104. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still within the confines of
105. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still unarmed.
106. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still not making any moves
107. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was facing Officer Blanc, was
on his knee in the snow and was not attempting to flee the scene.
108. At the time of the second tasing, Defendant Felkins had moved in closer to Mr.
Lecheminant and was standing over him while Mr. Lecheminant remained on the ground.
109. Defendant Blanc’s response to tase Mr. Lecheminant a second time was as a
punishment for Mr. Lecheminant not immediately complying with Defendant Blanc’s order to go
110. It was only as Defendant Blanc was tasing Mr. Lecheminant was a second time that
111. Defendant Blanc knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force at the time the unlawful, excessive force was used
against him.
16
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24
has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of medical expenses,
non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones, pain and suffering,
114. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
115. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Blanc was acting under the color of state
law, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his official duties or
employment.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
119. Mr. Lecheminant had a clearly established right to be free from the unlawful,
17
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24
120. Defendant Blanc lacked any reasonable basis to use physical force against Mr.
Lecheminant, who had already been tased twice and was on the ground.
121. At the time of Defendant Blanc’s violent assault of Mr. Lecheminant, Mr.
Lecheminant was on the ground, unarmed, within the confines of his fenced in backyard and
122. At the time of the violent hands-on assault of Mr. Lecheminant, Mr. Lecheminant
had not made any move towards either Defendant Felkins or Defendant Blanc, nor had Mr.
123. Defendant Blanc’s violent assault of Mr. Lecheminant was to punish Mr.
Lecheminant because the taser only had a minimal debilitating effect against him and did not
124. Defendant Blanc violently assaulted Mr. Lecheminant and repeatedly struck Mr.
Lecheminant in the face with by kicking him and using his fists on Mr. Lecheminant face and
head, even after Mr. Lecheminant was on the ground, tased twice and within the confines of his
own fenced in backyard and surrounded by at least one other officer, Defendant Felkins.
125. Defendant Blanc knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force at the time the unlawful, excessive force was used
against him.
18
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24
has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of medical expenses,
non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones, pain and suffering,
128. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
129. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Felkins was acting under the color of state
law, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his official duties or
employment.
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
133. Mr. Lecheminant had a clearly established right to be free from the unlawful,
134. Defendant Blanc lacked any reasonable basis to use physical force against Mr.
19
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24
Lecheminant.
135. At the time that Defendant Blanc engaged in multiple instances of excessive force
against Mr. Lecheminant, Defendant Felkins was present and witnessed how the situation between
Lecheminant’s conduct, Defendant Felkins knew that Defendant Blanc was not justified in using
the degree of force against Mr. Lecheminant that Defendant Blanc repeatedly engaged in.
137. During each instance of excessive force engaged in by Defendant Blanc, Defendant
138. Despite being present, on scene and independently observing that no use of force
was required under the circumstances, Defendant Felkins failed to intervene on behalf of Mr.
Lecheminant.
139. Defendant Felkins knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force at the time the unlawful, excessive force was used
against him.
Lecheminant has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of
medical expenses, non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones,
pain and suffering, and mental and emotional stress and humiliation.
20
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 24
142. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
143. The City of Denver is an official with final policymaking authority regarding the
144. The fact that Defendants Blanc was not placed on administrative leave, retrained,
Defendants Blanc.
145. The official conclusion by Defendant Pacelko and Sandoval on scene on January 1,
2019 that Defendant Blanc did not engage in unconstitutional use of excessive force constitutes an
146. The City of Denver’s investigation by Defendant’s Pacelko, Sandoval and Duran,
and conclusion that no further action or investigation be conducted into the incident involving
Defendants Felkins and Duran and Mr. Lecheminant constitutes an official ratification of
Defendant Blanc’s unlawful conduct of excessive physical force against Mr. Lecheminant.
147. The City of Denver also ratified Defendant Blanc’s unconstitutional conduct by
21
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 24
148. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
149. The City of Denver failed to properly train and supervise Defendants Blanc,
Pacelko and Sandoval in the following regard: The City of Denver intentionally, recklessly or with
deliberate indifference failed to train Defendants Blanc, Pacelko and Sandoval on the
150. This is evidenced by Defendant Blanc’s excessive use of force by causing serious
bodily injury to an unarmed suspect, and Defendant Pacelko and Sandoval’s inability to recognize
excessive force when an officer has almost no injuries after going hands on with an unarmed
151. The City of Denver intentionally, recklessly or with deliberate indifference failed
to train Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval on giving Miranda rights to criminal suspects that are
152. Defendant Blanc’s attack on Mr. Lecheminant, and his resulting injuries are a direct
consequence of Defendant Pacelko, Defendant Sandoval and the City of Denver’s failure to
153. Defendant Pacelko, Defendant Sandoval and the City of Denver intentionally,
recklessly, or with deliberate indifference failed to properly train and supervise Defendant Blanc.
22
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 24
154. The lack of training of Defendant Blanc is evidenced by the violent response he
had while on duty and engaging with unarmed Mr. Lecheminant, who at the time of their
155. The lack of training and supervision is also evidenced by Defendant Pacelko,
Defendant Sandoval, Defendant Duran and the City of Denver’s hasty investigation, which
contained little to no actual fact-finding as it related to Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries, and the almost
immediate recommendation that no further investigation into Defendant Blanc’s conduct be taken
156. The lack training of Defendants Blanc, Pacelko and Sandoval caused Mr.
157. The actions or omissions as described herein deprived Mr. Lecheminant of the
rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of
America.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Lecheminant respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
his favor and against each of the Defendants, and award him all relief allowed by law, including
determined at trial;
f. Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert
witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;
g. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the appropriate lawful rate;
h. Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief
as allowed by law.
s/ Christopher R. Decker
_________________________________
Christopher R. Decker
The Law Offices of Decker & Jones LLC
226 West 12th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
Telephone: (303) 573-5253
Email: cdecker@deckerjoneslaw.com
24
Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1-1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
District of Colorado
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.