Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. ______

TRAVIS COOK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO;

BRANDON VALDEZ, in his individual capacity;
SCOTT THOMAS, in his individual capacity;
RYAN CLARK, in his individual capacity;

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Travis Cook, by and through his attorneys Adam Frank and Melissa Roth of FRANK

& SALAHUDDIN LLC, respectfully alleges for his Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action for monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief,

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. On February 11, 2018, Defendant Brandon Valdez, an Arvada Police Officer repeatedly

punched Plaintiff Travis Cook in the face while arresting Mr. Cook. Defendant Valdez falsely

claimed that his punches were justified because Mr. Cook had elbowed Defendant Valdez in the jaw.

Mr. Cook did not elbow Defendant Valdez. He did not hit Defendant Valdez. He did not do

anything that justified Defendant Valdez punching him, let alone beating his face bloody.

3. Two witnesses who saw the entire event have each testified that they witnessed the entire

interaction between Mr. Cook and Defendant Valdez, and Mr. Cook did not elbow or otherwise

physically contact Defendant Valdez before Defendant Valdez started punching Mr. Cook.

1
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19

4. Defendant Arvada does not require its officers to wear body cameras, so there is no video of

the punches or what led to them.

5. Photographs taken after the interaction between Mr. Cook and Defendant Valdez, make it

clear how badly Mr. Cook was beaten:

6. Defendant Valdez suffered no injury:

7. After seeing the obvious differences in the injuries suffered, Defendant Arvada immediately

began covering up Defendant Valdez’s use of excessive force.

2
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19

8. Mr. Cook’s case revealed that Defendant Arvada’s internal affairs process is solely concerned

with exonerating Arvada officers, not finding the truth. Arvada’s internal affairs report based on the

investigation into the incident between Mr. Cook and Defendant Valdez was shocking. It falsely

reported the two independent witnesses as having said the opposite of what each actually said, as

evidenced by recordings of the witnesses’ statements. It falsely reported the statements of a

commanding officer concerning what statements Mr. Cook had made after the incident, as again

evidenced by the recording of the underlying interview. In short, Arvada consciously and

intentionally disregarded the truth about what happened between Mr. Cook and Defendant Valdez.

9. As described in detail below, this false exoneration of Defendant Valdez was just one

instance of an ongoing pattern of Defendant Arvada ratifying, condoning, and covering up

Defendant Valdez’s repeated use of excessive force. Arvada’s practice has been to respond to

Defendant Valdez’s repeated excessive use of force by condoning his actions, ratifying them after

the fact, telling him he acted appropriately, and disciplining others who did not participate in

Defendant Valdez’s excessive use of force. Through this practice of tolerating and condoning the

use of excessive force, Arvada was deliberately indifferent to the inevitability that Defendant Valdez

would continue to brutalize members of the community with whom he interacted.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1343, and 2201-02.

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

alleged herein occurred in the State of Colorado, and all the parties were residents of and/or

domiciled in the State at the time of the events giving rise to this Complaint.

3
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19

PARTIES

12. Travis Cook is a resident of Colorado and was a resident of Colorado at all times relevant to

this Complaint.

13. Defendant City of Arvada, Colorado (“Arvada”) is a Colorado municipal corporation.

14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Brandon Valdez was a resident of the

State of Colorado. At all relevant times to this complaint, Defendant Valdez was acting within the

scope of his official duties and employment and under color of state law in his capacity as a police

officer for the Arvada Police Department.

15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Scott Thomas was a resident of the State

of Colorado. At all relevant times to this complaint, Defendant Thomas was acting within the scope

of his official duties and employment and under color of state law in his capacity as a police officer

for the Arvada Police Department.

16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Ryan Clark was a resident of the State of

Colorado. At all relevant times to this complaint, Defendant Clark was acting within the scope of his

official duties and employment and under color of state law in his capacity as a police officer for the

Arvada Police Department.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Arvada Officers Repeatedly Punched Mr. Cook in the Face, Tackled Him, and Tasered
Him Without Justification, Leaving Him Beaten, Bruised, and Bloody

17. On February 11, 2018, Travis Cook had an argument with his then-girlfriend, Alex Stumpp,

in the basement of Victor and Linda Stumpp’s house in Arvada, where Travis and Alex lived.

18. At a certain point, based on the volume of the argument, Victor Stumpp called the police.

19. Defendant Officers Brandon Valdez, Ryan Clark, and Scott Thomas of the Arvada Police

Department were the first officers to arrive and investigate. After interviewing some of the
4
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19

witnesses, the three Defendants decided they were going to arrest Mr. Cook for allegedly assaulting

Ms. Stumpp.

20. At trial, Mr. Cook was acquitted of the alleged assault of Ms. Stumpp.

21. However, he does not dispute that on that day, Defendants were permitted to arrest him. It

is the way Defendants chose to arrest Mr. Cook that shocks the conscience and gives rise to Mr.

Cook’s causes of action.

22. From the outset, for no discernible reason, Defendant Valdez was rude, hostile, and

extremely aggressive with Mr. Cook.

23. During the initial investigation, Defendant Thomas interviewed Mr. Cook while Defendant

Valdez and Mr. Cook’s mother, Karalee Baker, looked on.

24. Defendant Clark then called Defendant Thomas over, leaving Defendant Valdez with Mr.

Cook and Ms. Baker.

25. When this happened, Mr. Cook began telling his story to Defendant Valdez.

26. Defendant Valdez would not listen to Mr. Cook’s description of what had happened.

Defendant Valdez actively refused to listen to Mr. Cook, making it clear that he was not paying

attention to anything Mr. Cook was saying.

27. Mr. Cook tried to get Defendant Valdez’s attention, saying, “I’m just trying to tell you my

story, bro.” Defendant Valdez responded by escalating the situation: “I’m not your bro.” Mr. Cook

tried again, saying, “dude, I’m just trying to tell you my story.” Defendant Valdez still refused to

listen: “I’m not your dude.” Mr. Cook tried again: “what should I call you?” Defendant Valdez

wouldn’t even tell Mr. Cook his name.

28. Facing this unnecessary and unproductive antagonism, Mr. Cook stood up and walked

towards the kitchen area.

5
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19

29. The evidence adduced at the criminal trial suggests that this was exactly what Defendant

Valdez wanted. Officer Valdez followed Mr. Cook to the kitchen area and immediately aggressively

confronted him. However, Defendant Valdez did not get his fight; instead, Mr. Cook’s mother

calmed the situation and Mr. Cook sat down in a chair in the living room.

30. Defendant Valdez then set about creating another situation where he could have a

confrontation with Mr. Cook. First, Defendant Valdez took off his jacket, rolled up the sleeves on

his uniform, and called for Defendants Thomas and Clark to join him.

31. The three Defendants conferred and decided they would arrest Mr. Cook.

32. Mr. Cook was seated in a chair in the Stumpps’ living room. At Defendant Valdez’s direction

the three Defendants surrounded Mr. Cook, with Defendant Valdez by Mr. Cook’s right arm,

Defendant Clark by Mr. Cook’s left arm, and Defendant Thomas behind Mr. Cook.

33. The Defendants then began giving Mr. Cook contradictory instructions. As Defendant Clark

testified at trial, the other Defendants ordered Mr. Cook to stand up, while Defendant Clark told

him to sit back down.

34. Mr. Cook could not comply with the contradictory orders.

35. Defendant Valdez used this “non-compliance” to justify using physical force on Mr. Cook.

36. Defendant Thomas and Defendant Valdez told Mr. Cook to stand up again, and Mr. Cook

tried to comply.

37. However, rather than let Mr. Cook stand up after giving him the order, Defendant Clark

testified at trial that he and his fellow officers immediately went “hands on,” using physical force to

pull Mr. Cook out of the chair.

38. Defendant Clark grabbed Mr. Cook’s left arm, Defendant Valdez grabbed Mr. Cook’s right

arm, and Defendant Thomas went behind Mr. Cook to push or lift him out of the chair.

39. It was the Defendants who initiated the physical contact with Mr. Cook.

6
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19

40. Victor Stumpp, Alex Stumpp’s father, observed what happened next.

41. Mr. Stumpp was not a witness who was predisposed to testify favorably for Mr. Cook. He

testified that Mr. Cook was no longer welcome at the Stumpps’ house, that Mr. Cook was no longer

dating Alex, and that Mr. Stumpp had no plans to ever see Mr. Cook again in his life.

42. However, Victor Stumpp was clear in describing what he saw: he watched the entire

interaction between Defendant Valdez and Mr. Cook, and Mr. Cook never struck Defendant Valdez

in any way. Instead, without reason, Defendant Valdez began punching Mr. Cook in the face. When

Defendant Valdez was done, Mr. Cook was almost unrecognizable (see above photos).

43. Karalee Baker, Mr. Cook’s mother, also saw the entire event unfold. She was equally

adamant: Mr. Cook never struck Defendant Valdez. Defendant Valdez pummeled Mr. Cook.

44. Ms. Baker and Mr. Stumpp’s accounts were borne out by the fact that, despite his claim he

had been elbowed in the face, Defendant Valdez had no injury (see above photo).

45. After Defendant Valdez punched Mr. Cook in the face repeatedly, Officer Clark threw Mr.

Cook onto the floor.

46. All three Defendants then piled on top of Mr. Cook.

47. Next, Defendant Thomas used his taser to shock Mr. Cook. This was only two or three

seconds after Defendant Valdez had repeatedly punched Mr. Cook and Defendant Clark had thrown

Mr. Cook on the ground. Defendant Thomas ran electricity through Mr. Cook’s body for a full five

seconds.

48. After Defendant Thomas shocked Mr. Cook with his taser, the three Defendants handcuffed

Mr. Cook. At that point, Mr. Cook was placed under arrest.

49. Only ten seconds elapsed between Defendant Valdez punching Mr. Cook repeatedly in the

face and Mr. Cook being placed in handcuffs. Five of those seconds consisted of Defendant

Thomas shocking Mr. Cook. During the other five seconds, Defendant Clark threw Mr. Cook on

7
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19

the ground right after he had been pummeled in the face, the Defendants all jumped on Mr. Cook,

and they placed him in handcuffs.

50. Based on the argument on February 11, 2018 that led to police being called, Mr. Cook was

charged with assaulting Ms. Stumpp. Mr. Cook was acquitted of assaulting Ms. Stumpp.

51. Based on the interaction with police officers that same day, Mr. Cook was charged with

Second Degree Assault on Defendant Valdez, Third Degree Assault on Defendant Valdez, Resisting

Arrest, and Obstructing a Peace Officer.

52. Mr. Cook was acquitted of Second Degree Assault on Defendant Valdez, Third Degree

Assault on Defendant Valdez, and Resisting Arrest. Mr. Cook’s only conviction was for the

misdemeanor offense of Obstructing a Peace Officer.

53. Under Colorado law, the crime of Resisting Arrest only addresses conduct that occurs up

until the point a person is successfully placed under arrest. The crime of Obstructing a Peace Officer

addresses conduct that occurs both during an arrest and after an arrest.

54. By acquitting Mr. Cook of assaulting Defendant Valdez, the jury found that Mr. Cook did

not elbow or otherwise hit Defendant Valdez at any point during their interaction.

55. By acquitting Mr. Cook of resisting arrest, the jury found that Mr. Cook did not take any

action during his arrest that could have justified Defendants’ excessive force.

56. Mr. Cook was convicted of Obstructing a Peace Officer because, after Defendant Valdez

had beaten him bloody, Defendant Clark had thrown him to the ground, all three Defendants had

jumped on him, and Defendant Thomas tasered him, Mr. Cook was insistent on showing his mother

his bloodied face and tried to do so while Defendants were holding him in place. Mr. Cook’s mother

was able to record video of this portion of the incident:

https://faslaw.sharepoint.com/:v:/g/ESVtVUA0PCFEpkhyfRKq9O0B377eGsSdNQNLbTM8qJT

c9Q?e=6XZJWH. Given the jury’s acquittal of Mr. Cook for both assault charges and for Resisting

8
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19

Arrest, the only possible interpretation of the guilty verdict for Obstructing a Peace Officer is that it

related to the conduct observed on this video, which was admitted at trial. This conduct occurred

well after Defendants’ use of excessive force on Mr. Cook.

Arvada is Responsible for its Officers’ Use of Excessive Force

57. Defendant Arvada immediately began following its practice of covering up the other

Defendants’ use of excessive force.

58. Because of the degree and severity of the force used on Mr. Cook, Commander Eric Kellogg

responded to the scene.

59. In Arvada, the Arvada Police Department has divided the city into sectors, each with one

Commander. The Commander of a sector is the highest-ranking police officer in that sector. The

Commander is responsible for the daily operations of all officers in the Commander’s sector. The

Commander is the ultimate supervisor of all officers in his sector. The only people in the Arvada

Police Department above a Commander are the Chief of Police, the Deputy Chief of Operations,

and the Deputy Chief of Patrol.

60. Upon arriving at the scene, Commander Kellogg spoke with Mr. Cook. After this

conversation, Commander Kellogg wrote a report in which he falsely claimed Mr. Cook had

repeatedly admitted to hitting Defendant Valdez before Defendant Valdez began punching Mr.

Cook, supposedly repeatedly saying “I didn’t mean to hit the officer. I just needed to go outside.”

61. Officer Devoney Cooke was present for Commander Kellogg’s conversation with Mr. Cook.

According to Officer Cooke, Mr. Cook did not ever say he had hit Defendant Valdez prior to

Defendant Valdez punching Mr. Cook.

62. The incident in this case was the subject of a subsequent Internal Affairs investigation.

Sergeant Brian Thome was the Internal Affairs investigator. As a part of his investigation, he

interviewed Commander Kellogg in a recorded interview.

9
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19

63. Commander Kellogg did not believe the recording of his interview with Sergeant Thome

would ever be provided to Mr. Cook.

64. In this interview, Commander Kellogg told Sergeant Thome that what Mr. Cook had

repeatedly told him was that Mr. Cook just wanted to get some fresh air. Commander Kellogg said

that this was the statement Mr. Cook kept on repeating, not that he had hit Defendant Valdez.

65. When Commander Kellogg was speaking in a forum he believed would remain private, he

did not say Mr. Cook had ever stated he had hit Defendant Valdez.

66. Commander Kellogg was comfortable privately telling Sergeant Thome the truth – that Mr.

Cook had not said he hit Defendant Valdez – because he knew that Sergeant Thome was part of

Arvada’s cover-up team.

67. Evidencing this, when Sergeant Thome wrote his Internal Affairs report, he wrote that

Commander Kellogg said Mr. Cook admitted he had hit Defendant Valdez, despite the fact that this

statement does not appear in the recorded interview. Even though Commander Kellogg never told

Sergeant Thome that Mr. Cook said he hit Defendant Valdez, Sergeant Thome put this false and

completely fabricated statement in his Internal Affairs report.

68. Sergeant Thome’s use of falsehoods and fabrications did not stop there.

69. As a part of his Internal Affairs investigation, Sergeant Thome did a recorded interview with

Victor Stumpp.

70. No other officer interviewed Victor Stumpp. Sergeant Thome knew this because, as a part of

his Internal Affairs investigation, he reviewed all the police reports related to the incident. These

reports did not document any interview with Victor Stumpp. Sergeant Thome knew that his

interview of Victor Stumpp was the only law enforcement interview of Mr. Stumpp.

71. In Sergeant Thome’s recorded interview with Mr. Stumpp, Mr. Stumpp said that he had a

clear view of the entire incident and that he never saw Mr. Cook hit Defendant Valdez.

10
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19

72. Sergeant Thome left this statement out of his report.

73. Instead, when Sergeant Thome wrote his Internal Affairs report, he wrote that according to

Mr. Stumpp, while Mr. Cook was still in the chair and the officers grabbed Mr. Cook’s arms, Mr.

Stumpp saw Mr. Cook resist and swing his arms around.

74. According to the recorded interview, Mr. Stumpp never made this statement. Sergeant

Thome fabricated it to try to falsely exonerate Defendant Valdez for repeatedly punching Mr. Cook

in the face without justification.

75. Sergeant Thome knew that he was in possession of a recorded interview with Victor Stumpp

that was extremely exculpatory for Mr. Cook. He also knew that under his Brady obligations as a law

enforcement officer, he had an obligation to ensure that this exculpatory evidence be given to Mr.

Cook. In spite of this knowledge, Sergeant Thome took no steps to ensure that his interview with

Mr. Stumpp was provided to Mr. Cook.

76. Mr. Cook only obtained the recorded interviews described herein through litigating multiple

subpoenas in his criminal defense case, each of which Defendant Arvada fought.

77. Through its City Attorney’s Office, Defendant Arvada did everything it could to prevent Mr.

Cook from getting access to the Internal Affairs file in this case and the recorded interviews that

underlay the Internal Affairs report.

78. In the course of his Internal Affairs investigation, Sergeant Thome also reviewed the video

contained in the link above. In his report, he wrote that in the video, Ms. Baker told an officer on

scene that Mr. Cook hadn’t meant to punch Defendant Valdez. Once again, that statement does not

appear in the video.

79. In sum, Sergeant Thome falsified numerous material aspects of his Internal Affairs report,

knowingly including false statements in his report with the purpose of falsely exonerating Defendant

Valdez. He did this with the knowledge and assistance of Commander Kellogg, who signed off on

11
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19

the report despite knowing it contained a falsified statement from Commander Kellogg himself, and

that this was the same falsified statement Commander Kellogg had put in his own report.

80. Through these actions, Arvada ratified, condoned, and covered up the other Defendants’ use

of excessive force and evidenced Arvada’s practice of ratifying, condoning, and covering up the use

of excessive force.

81. Furthermore, when it comes to Defendant Valdez, Arvada has a long history of ratifying,

condoning, and covering up his use of excessive force.

82. Under Arvada policy, if any Arvada police officer has three or more potential excessive force

incidents within a year, that officer’s uses of force must be reviewed at the end of the year to

determine whether that officer has been using force excessively.

83. For each of the seven years leading up to 2018 (2011-2017), Defendant Valdez had three or

more potential excessive force incidents, such that for each of the seven years leading up to this

incident, Defendant Valdez had to go through a use of force review.

84. Despite Defendant Valdez’s minimum 21 prior incidents of potential excessive force (and

likely many more) in the seven-year period leading up to the incident in this case, Defendant Arvada

has never once found that the force he has used was excessive.

85. Arvada’s decisions evidence Arvada’s practice of ratifying, condoning, and covering up the

use of excessive force.

86. In Mr. Cook’s criminal case, Mr. Cook was only granted access to records concerning a small

portion of Defendant Valdez’s minimum of 21 uses of force and Arvada’s responses to them.

However, even these limited records paint a clear picture of a city determined to exonerate an officer

who is using excessive force on a repeated basis.

87. On August 23, 2017, an incident occurred between a man named Lennis Dukes, Defendant

Valdez, and Officer Ledoux. Officer Devoney Cooke was also present. In this incident, Defendant

12
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19

Valdez and Officer Cooke were dispatched to contact Mr. Dukes based on having received a report

of misdemeanor child abuse related to a minor injury observed by a teacher. Defendant Valdez and

Officer Cooke went to Mr. Dukes’s house and knocked on the door. Mr. Dukes answered the door

and stepped outside to speak with the officers. Defendant Valdez told Mr. Dukes he wanted to

speak with the three children who were in the house, so Mr. Dukes called the children outside and

they came. Defendant Valdez asked the child who had been the subject of the child abuse complaint

what had happened and she told him Mr. Dukes had smacked her on the forehead as discipline. Mr.

Dukes confirmed this. Defendant Valdez told Mr. Dukes he was under arrest. Preparing to go into

custody, Mr. Dukes opened the door to his apartment, let the three children back inside, and locked

the door, staying outside. Defendant Valdez inexplicably took this as defiance and began yelling at

Mr. Dukes and threatening to use his taser. Mr. Dukes attempted to tell Defendant Valdez that he

was just securing his children and his house, but Defendant Valdez was uninterested. As Mr. Dukes

pulled his key out of the apartment door after locking it, Defendant Valdez and Officer Ledoux

began attacking him. Defendant Valdez began punching Mr. Dukes in the head, as Mr. Dukes tried

to put his hands up to surrender. Again, inexplicably, Defendant Valdez took Mr. Dukes’s attempt

to put his hands up as defiance, later claiming this was because he had told Mr. Dukes to put his

hands behind his back, not up. All Mr. Dukes had been doing was trying to make himself seem as

non-threatening as possible, and then, to protect his head from Defendant Valdez’s punches.

Officer Ledoux joined the assault on Mr. Dukes, punching Mr. Dukes in his head and legs.

Defendant Valdez then used his taser on Mr. Dukes, shocking him with a painful electric current. At

that point, Defendant Valdez and Officer Ledoux placed Mr. Dukes in handcuffs.

88. In sum, Defendant Valdez and Officer Ledoux were arresting a man for a misdemeanor who

had engaged in no resistance. In spite of that, Defendant Valdez began punching the man in the

head, as did Officer Ledoux. Defendant Valdez then gave Mr. Dukes an electric shock with a taser.

13
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19

Given the low-level offense the officers were investigating and Mr. Dukes’s lack of resistance, no

force was justified.

89. Officer Cooke did not join in the use of force against Mr. Dukes, as she did not believe the

use of force was justified.

90. Arvada did not seek to interview Mr. Dukes as part of its Internal Affairs investigation.

91. Arvada also did not interview Officer Cooke as part of its Internal Affairs investigation.

92. Despite the obvious constitutional violation, Arvada’s Internal Affairs review of the incident

with Mr. Dukes cleared Defendant Valdez and Officer Ledoux of all wrongdoing. Arvada went even

further, putting Officer Cooke on a remedial training plan because she did not join the other two

officers and use force against Mr. Dukes. In coming to this resolution, Arvada sent a clear message

to Defendant Valdez that its practice was to accept, condone, cover up, and ratify his use of

excessive force. It also sent a clear message to all other officers, including Officer Cooke: when one

officer starts using force, even if it is excessive, Arvada officers are expected to jump in and use

force as well.

93. Defendant Valdez engaged in another use of excessive force on October 15, 2013. On that

day, a man later identified as Daniel Duran was suspected of shoplifting from a King Soopers. The

amount of goods that had been shoplifted rendered the underlying offense a misdemeanor.

Defendant Valdez arrived at the King Soopers and attempted to contact Mr. Duran. Mr. Duran got

on a motorcycle and began to drive away slowly. Defendant Valdez used his taser on Mr. Duran

while Mr. Duran was riding on his motorcycle. Defendant Valdez shot Mr. Duran in the face with

the taser. After being shot in the face with a taser, Mr. Duran immediately crashed the motorcycle

into a display of pumpkins in front of the store. Mr. Duran flew ten feet through the air. Soon after,

Mr. Duran began having a seizure: his hands clenched into fists, his legs locked out straight, he

started shaking, he began drooling, and his eyes stared at the sky. During this seizure, Defendant

14
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19

Valdez kept his taser probes affixed to Mr. Duran’s face and made no attempt to contact Mr. Duran

or provide medical assistance. It took three minutes before Defendant Valdez gave Mr. Duran any

medical assistance.

94. In this instance, Defendant Valdez’s Commander, Kathy Foos, made a complaint and

triggered an internal investigation. Sergeant Gregory Luby was assigned to conduct the investigation.

95. Sergeant Luby concluded that because Mr. Duran had not been violent, had taken no

aggressive actions towards any officer, had not resisted arrest, and was wanted for only a minor

property crime, Defendant Valdez’s use of force against Mr. Duran constituted excessive force not

permitted under Arvada’s policies concerning the use of force. He sent this recommendation to

Commander Foos. Commander Foos agreed with Sergeant Luby. She sent the report to Deputy

Chief Gary Creager.

96. Deputy Chief Creager overruled Sergeant Luby and Commander Foos. He decided that,

while Defendant Valdez had deployed his taser in a way that violated Arvada’s taser policy, his use

of force had not been excessive. He forwarded this recommendation to Chief of Police Don Wick.

Chief Wick followed the recommendation of Deputy Chief Creager and rejected the proposed

conclusion of Sergeant Luby and Commander Foos. His final resolution of the internal investigation

was that Defendant Valdez had made a procedural violation of Arvada’s taser policy, but that he had

not used excessive force. Defendant Valdez was given only a verbal reprimand for what Arvada

decided was a mere procedural violation.

97. This resolution was outrageous. Using a taser on a person actively riding a motorcycle is

extremely dangerous and can lead to death. Defendant Valdez’s conduct was not merely excessive

force; it was criminal. To wit, in April 2019, a former Michigan State Trooper was convicted of

15
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19

involuntary manslaughter for an August 2017 incident where he used a taser on a person who was

riding an ATV, causing the person to crash the ATV and die. 1

98. In coming to this resolution, Arvada sent a message to Defendant Valdez that its practice

was to accept, condone, cover up, and ratify his use of excessive force, no matter how egregious or

even criminal it may be. No wonder Defendant Valdez continued to use excessive force throughout

his career with Arvada, including but not limited to the (minimum of) 21 potential excessive force

incidents between 2011 and 2017 and the incident with Mr. Cook on February 11, 2018.

99. Equally galling is the fact that, based on an incident that took place on January 14, 2018,

Defendant Valdez was not fit to be on patrol on February 11, 2018 when he assaulted Mr. Cook.

100. On January 14, 2018, Defendant Valdez shot and killed Erick DeLeon while he was on duty.

101. Arvada, as an employer of many police officers, and as a city that has experienced numerous

incidents in which police have shot and killed people, knows that when an officer shoots and kills a

person, it has significant psychological effects on that officer. Arvada knows that, as research has

shown, after a police officer shoots a person:

The individual may have feelings of vulnerability and helplessness stemming from a
perceived lack of control over the incident. Generally, the more vulnerable the officer felt
during the incident, the greater the emotional impact of the situation. At this stage the
involved officer may experience many kinds of cognitive or emotional reactions that,
although normal human reactions, make him or her feel they are losing emotional control.
Some of the more common reactions are fear, anxiety, anger, rage, or blaming those
responsible for the outcome of the critical incident. . . . The officer may make poor decisions
or show signs of inattention which were not previously exhibited. . . . It is not unusual for
coworkers to notice increases in aggression in situations resembling the critical incident. 2

This is exactly what Defendant Valdez was experiencing on February 11, 2018 during the incident

with Mr. Cook, and Arvada knew it.

1 Jacey Fortin, Ex-State Trooper Who Fired Taser at Teenager on A.T.V. Is Convicted of Manslaughter, N.Y. Times,

April 17, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/us/michigan-trooper-guilty-mark-bessner.html.

2 Officer Involved Shootings: A Guide For Law Enforcement Leaders, United States Department of Justice, p. 24. Available at:

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/e051602754_Officer_Involved_v8.pdf

16
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19

102. Despite knowing that Defendant Valdez had shot and killed a man less than a month earlier,

and despite knowing how this was affecting Defendant Valdez, Arvada put him back on patrol. This

decision was deliberately indifferent to the safety of every person Defendant Valdez interacted with

while on patrol.

103. On information and belief, Arvada did not have Defendant Valdez undergo a psychological

assessment after he shot and killed Mr. DeLeon. Arvada did not require Defendant Valdez to

undergo counseling before he was allowed to return to patrol. Arvada took no steps to ensure that,

following the shooting, Defendant Valdez was psychologically ready to return to patrol. Because of

this, Defendant Valdez returned to patrol before he was psychologically ready. Arvada’s deliberate

indifference to the safety of everyone who interacted with Defendant Valdez in the wake of the

shooting, when he was a metaphorical loaded gun carrying a very literal actual gun, directly led to the

incident in which Defendant Valdez assaulted Mr. Cook.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

First Cause of Action: Excessive Force

Fourth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendants Valdez, Thomas, Clark

104. Mr. Cook incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully detailed herein.

105. Defendants Valdez, Thomas, and Clark subjected Mr. Cook to force which, judged from the

perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, was unreasonable.

106. Mr. Cook posed no threat to any officer and had engaged in no physical resistance.

107. Accordingly, when these Defendants grabbed Mr. Cook, Defendant Valdez punched Mr.

Cook in the face repeatedly, Defendant Clark threw Mr. Cook on the ground the Defendants piled

on Mr. Cook, and Defendant Thomas used his taser on Mr. Cook, this constituted excessive force.

108. These Defendants’ actions caused Mr. Cook substantial harm.

17
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19

Second Cause of Action: Municipal Liability

Monell; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant City of Arvada

109. Mr. Cook incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully detailed herein.

110. The actual customs, policies, and practices of the City of Arvada concerning the use of force

was a proximate cause of substantial harm to Mr. Cook and a moving force behind the violation of

Mr. Cook’s constitutional rights.

111. Arvada’s custom and practice of accepting, condoning, covering up, and ratifying its officers’

decisions to use excessive force – particularly those of Defendant Valdez – was a proximate cause of

substantial harm to Mr. Cook and a moving force behind the violation of Mr. Cook’s constitutional

rights.

112. Arvada’s inadequate training, supervision, and/or discipline of its employees was a deliberate

choice which resulted in the unconstitutional use of excessive force against Mr. Cook. Arvada’s

failure to properly train, supervise, and/or discipline Defendants Valdez, Thomas, and Clark

concerning the use of force was a proximate cause of substantial harm to Mr. Cook and a moving

force behind the violation of Mr. Cook’s constitutional rights.

113. Arvada’s decision to put Defendant Valdez back on patrol when he was not psychologically

fit to be a patrol officer in the wake of having shot and killed a man less than a month earlier was a

proximate cause of substantial harm to Mr. Cook and a moving force behind the violation of Mr.

Cook’s constitutional rights.

114. These customs, practices, policies, choices, and failures, both individually and collectively,

represent deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of all people who happen to venture

into Arvada, rendering an incident such as what happened to Mr. Cook, inevitable.

18
 Case 1:20-cv-00212 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Mr. Cook respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor

against Defendants, and award him all relief as allowed by law, including but not limited to the

following:

a) Appropriate relief at law and equity;

b) Declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief;

c) Compensatory and punitive damages on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be

determined at trial;

d) Relief in the nature of mandamus;

e) Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action on all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988 and all applicable law;

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

g) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed by

law.

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

Dated: January 27, 2020

s/Adam Frank
Adam Frank
Melissa Roth
FRANK & SALAHUDDIN LLC
1741 High Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 974-1084
Fax: (303) 974-1085
adam@fas-law.com
melissa@fas-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19