Morgan v. Department of Corrections

8/2/2019 Morgan v. Department of Corrections

1/22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. ____________________

JOHN MORGAN;DUSTIN COOK;

PAUL STARK; andJERROD THOELE;

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, in hisofficial capacity;

JEFFREY WELLS, Community Parole Officer, in his individual and official capacities;JIM KELLER, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Team Leader, in his individual andofficial capacities;

LIESL SCHUMACHER, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Supervisor, in his

individual and official capacities;JOHN OREY, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Supervisor, in his individual and

official capacities; and

JAMES J. FITZPATRICK, Commander, Special Operations Unit, in his individual and official

capacities;

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs John Morgan, Dustin Cook, Paul Stark, and Jerrod Thoele, by and through their

attorneys, Siddhartha H. Rathod and Qusair Mohamedbhai of RATHOD |MOHAMEDBHAI LLC,

respectfully allege for their Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs were among many parolees within the custody of the Colorado Department of

Corrections who were unlawfully imprisoned after being arrested for parole violations.

Defendant Jeff Wells, a Community Parole Officer, falsified the hold dates indicated on

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22


2/22

2

Complaints filed against the Plaintiffs, resulting in a failure to serve the Plaintiffs with the

Complaints against them within the ten-working-day requirement established by Colorado law

and Department of Corrections Administrative Regulations. Defendant Wellss supervisors were

aware of Mr. Wellss misconduct and the resulting constitutional violations, but did nothing to

remedy the problem. An Office of the Inspector General investigation launched into allegations

that Defendant Wells falsified information on his employment application resulted in discovery

of these egregious constitutional violations. Despite the Office of the Inspector General

investigators findings, the Department of Corrections failed to monitor and discipline Mr.

Wells, and, instead, promoted him.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and isbrought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claim for attorney fees and costs is

conferred by 42 U.S.C. 1988.

2. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Allof the events relevant to the claims contained herein occurred within the State of Colorado.

PARTIES

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff John Morgan was a citizen of the UnitedStates and a resident of the State of Colorado, and was on parole with the Colorado Department

of Corrections.

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Dustin Cook was a citizen of the UnitedStates and a resident of the State of Colorado, and was on parole with the Colorado Department

of Corrections.



3/22

3

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Paul Stark was a citizen of the United Statesand a resident of the State of Colorado, and was on parole with the Colorado Department of

Corrections.

6. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Jerrod Thoele was a citizen of the UnitedStates and a resident of the State of Colorado, and was on parole with the Colorado Department

of Corrections.

7. Defendant Tom Clements is a citizen of the United States and a resident of theState of Colorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Clements was

acting under color of state law in his capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department

of Corrections. Defendant Clements is being sued in his official capacity only.

8. Defendant Jeff Wells is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State ofColorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Wells was acting under

color of state law in his capacity as Community Parole Officer with the Colorado Department of

Corrections. Defendant Wells is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

9. Defendant Jim Keller is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State ofColorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Keller was acting under

color of state law in his capacity as Parole Team Leader with the Colorado Department of

Corrections. Defendant Keller is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

10. Defendant Liesl Schumacher is a citizen of the United States and a resident of theState of Colorado. At all times relevant to the claims against her, Defendant Schumacher was

acting under color of state law in her capacity as Parole Supervisor with the Colorado

Department of Corrections. Defendant Schumacher is being sued in her individual and official

capacities.



4/22

4

11. Defendant John Orey is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State ofColorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Orey was acting under

color of state law in his capacity as Parole Supervisor with the Colorado Department of

Corrections. Defendant Orey is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

12. Defendant James. J. Fitzpatrick is a citizen of the United States and a resident ofthe State of Colorado. At all times relevant to the claims against him, Defendant Fitzpatrick was

acting under color of state law in his capacity as Commander of the Special Operations Unit with

the Colorado Department of Corrections. Defendant Fitzpatrick is being sued in his individual

and official capacities.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant Wells has been employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections(DOC) as a Community Parole Officer since 2006.

14. Defendants Keller, Schumacher, Orey, Fitzpatrick, and Clements (DefendantSupervisors) are Defendant Wellss supervisors.

15. Defendant Wells made misrepresentations on his pre-employment applicationwith DOC.

16. In February 2011, Ed Herndon, a Criminal/Professional Standards Investigatorwith DOCs Office of the Inspector General, launched an investigation into allegations that

Defendant Wells had falsified documents while at a previous employer and lied on his DOC

employment application.

17. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Herndon discovered that DefendantWells had repeatedly held parolees, once they were arrested, longer than permitted by Colorado

law and DOC Administrative Regulations.



5/22

5

18. Colorado law and DOC Administrative Regulations require that a parolee beserved with a Complaint or released within ten working days of his arrest, and that he be given a

Parole Hearing within thirty days of his arrest.

19. One result of Defendant Wellss hold/arrest date determination was thatDefendant Wells would file a Complaint against a parolee more than ten working days after his

arrest, and the Parole Board would believe that the Complaint was valid.

20. Another result of Defendant Wellss hold/arrest date determination was that theParole Board would use Defendant Wells altered arrest date and schedule a Parole Hearing more

than thirty days after his arrest.

21. Mr. Herndons investigation revealed that at least three of Defendant Wellsssupervisors Defendant Keller, Supervisor Liesl Schumacher, and Supervisor John Orey were

aware that Defendant Wells was unlawfully holding parolees, but did nothing to remedy the

problem.

22. Defendant Supervisor have the ability to monitor Defendant Wellss chronologyentries into CWISE, yet none of them took any action to prevent Plaintiffs constitutional

violations as described herein.

23. Despite notice and recommendations by the Office of the Inspector General, DOCfailed to properly hire, train, supervise, discipline and/or monitor its parole officers regarding

parolee rights. This inadequate hiring, training, supervision, discipline and monitoring results

from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various

alternatives available to DOC. Such failure to properly hire, train, supervise, discipline and/or

monitor was the moving force behind and proximate cause of Defendants violations as alleged



6/22

6

herein against Plaintiffs, and constitutes an unconstitutional policy, procedure, custom and/or

practice.

24. Defendant Wells altered official documents pertaining to the charging of paroleesin order to make it appear as though certain tasks had been accomplished within statutory (C.R.S.

17-2-103.5) and administrative (AR 250-41(IV)(c)) required timeframes.

25. Defendant Wells was intentionally deceptive on his DOC employment applicationand integrity interview.

26. DOC has a culture of tolerating constitutional violations by parole officers againstparolees. DOC has failed to discipline, train, supervise and/or monitor its parole officers

concerning the constitutional rights of parolees. DOC has tacitly approved rampant and

widespread constitutional violations against parolees by its parole officers, and Plaintiffs lawsuit

is a foreseeable consequence of DOCs actions and inactions.

27. DOC has a deliberate indifference to or tacit approval of its parole officersmisconduct, which is performed through official custom, policy, or practice and that custom,

policy, or practice, was the moving force behind Defendants unconstitutional acts and Plaintiffs

injuries.

28. On January 19, 2010, Defendant James J. Fitzpatrick, Commander of the SpecialOperations Unit, sent an email to DOC supervisors explaining that Complaints against parolees

must reflect actual hold/arrest dates.

29. Defendant Fitzpatrick instructed DOC supervisors to ensure that all paroleofficers were aware of this requirement.

30. Defendant Fitzpatrick also instructed DOC supervisors to ensure that all paroleofficers knew how to verify that all Complaints contained the correct hold/arrest date.



7/22

7

31. Defendant Fitzpatrick took no action to determine whether his instructions werecarried out or whether parole officers were aware of and trained on the requirement that

Complaints reflect the actual hold/arrest dates.

32. During Mr. Herndons investigation into Defendant Wells, Defendant Wellsstated that he did not remember receiving Mr. Fitzpatricks email and had not been made aware

of the issue regarding improper hold/arrest dates being reflected in Complaints.

33. Defendant Wellss supervisor, Ms. Schumacher, indicated during theinvestigation that nothing in Defendant Wellss file reflected that he had been made aware of the

issue or trained how to resolve the issue.

34. Despite being on notice of Defendant Wellss repeated violations of Plaintiffsconstitutional rights and Defendant Wellss deficient training; Defendants did not provide

additional training to Defendant Wells, thereby tacitly approving of the widespread and rampant

constitutional violations caused by its subordinates.

35. Plaintiff Morgan was originally released from prison and placed on parole on July28, 2009.

36. On September 1, 2009, Defendant Wells initiated Complaint number 62775,Condition 3, indicating that on this date, Mr. Morgan committed a criminal offense of unlawful

use of a controlled substance.

37. On September 3, 2009, Defendant Wells initiated Complaint number 62775,Condition 4, indicated that on this date, Mr. Morgan failed to submit to a urinalysis test.

38. Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Morgan on September 21, 2009, and took him tothe Mesa County Jail.



8/22

8

39. The following day, September 22, 2009, Defendant Wells initiated Complaintnumber 62775, indicating a hold date of September 22.

40. The hold date should have been September 21; Defendant Wells manuallychanged the hold date.

41. On October 5, 2009, Complaint 62775 was filed with the Parole Board.42. Mr. Morgan was transferred from the Mesa County Jail to the Park County Jail on

October 6, 2009.

43. On October 14, 2009, Sergeant Theobald at the Park County Jail served Mr.Morgan with Complaint number 62275.

44. On October 15, 2009, the Parole Board dismissed the Complaint against Mr.Morgan because too much time had elapsed between Mr. Morgans arrest and the filing of the

Complaint against him.

45. On October 15, 2009, Mr. Morgan should have been released from jail.46. Defendant Wells did not, however, release Mr. Morgan. Instead, Defendant

Wells indicated that he planned to re-file the Complaint without releasing Mr. Morgan.

47. On October 20, 2009, Defendant Wells released Mr. Morgan from the ParkCounty Jail, but put an arrest hold on Mr. Morgan for the Mesa County Jail.

48. The same day, Defendant Wells initiated Complaint number 63175, which re-alleged the same allegations contained in Complaint number 62275, and reflected an inaccurate

hold date of October 20, 2009.

49. The Complaint should have been served as a summons, and the arrest holdprevented Mr. Morgan from bonding out of jail.

50. Mr. Morgans Parole Hearing was continued multiple times.



9/22

9

51. On March 11, 2010, Mr. Morgans parole was revoked and he was returned toDOC custody.

52. Mr. Morgan completed his sentence and was released from DOC on May 14,2010.

53. Mr. Morgan was unlawfully held in custody from October 15, 2009, until May 14,2010.

54. Plaintiff Cook was released from prison and placed on parole on July 10, 2007.55. On October 30, 2009, Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Cook and took him to the

Mesa County Jail.

56. Mr. Cook was transferred from the Mesa County Jail to the Park County Jail onNovember 6, 2009.

57. On November 9, 2009, Complaint number 63445 was filed with the Parole Board.58. The Complaint indicated a hold date of November 6, 2009.59. The Parole Board used the November 6, 2009 hold date, to determine when the

Parole Hearing was required, as the Hearing had to occur within 30 calendar days from the hold

date.

60. DOC was required to provide Mr. Cook with a Parole Hearing on or beforeNovember 29, 2009.

61. Mr. Cooks Parole Hearing was held on December 3, 2009, more than 30 calendardays from his actual arrest date of October 30, 2009.

62. Mr. Cooks parole was revoked at that Parole Hearing. Mr. Cook was unlawfullyheld from November 29, 2009, until he was released back onto parole on April 28, 2010.



10/22

10

63. Mr. Stark was originally released from prison and placed on parole on October11, 2007.

64. Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Stark on December 27, 2008.65. Defendant Wells filed Complaint number 57338 on January 14, 2009, twelve

working days after Mr. Stark was arrested.

66. Because Defendant Wells did not meet the ten-day deadline, the Parole Boarddismissed the Complaint against Mr. Stark.

67. Mr. Stark was released from jail on January 14, 2009, after having beenunlawfully held for two days.

68. On July 30, 2009, Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Stark again.69. On August 4, 2009, Mr. Stark was transferred from the Mesa County Jail to the

Park County Jail.

70. On August 17, 2009, Defendant Wells filed Complaint number 61696A againstMr. Stark.

71. The Complaint reflected a hold date of August 4, 2009, despite the fact that Mr.Stark was actually arrested on July 30, 2009.

72. Due to the false hold date, the Parole Board thought that Defendant Wells had metthe ten-day requirement.

73. Mr. Starks Parole Hearing was continued until September 17, 2009.74. On that date, the Complaint was rejected by the Parole Board because it did not

meet timeframe requirements.

75. Mr. Stark was released from custody on September 24, 2009, after having beenunlawfully held for a total of 45 days.



11/22

11

76. Mr. Thoele was originally placed on parole on September 8, 2010.77. On January 27, 2011, Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Thoele and placed an arrest

hold on him.

78. Mr. Thoele should have been released on February 10, 2011, but remainedunlawfully imprisoned until February 18, 2011.

79. Plaintiffs were not the only parolees who were unlawfully imprisoned due toDefendant Wellss conduct and DOCs failure to train or supervise Defendant Wells.

80. Christopher White, #140360, was illegally held a total of 26 days after DefendantWells twice failed to file a Complaint within ten working days of arresting Mr. White.

81. Adam Garcia, #133371, spent 11 days in jail after he should have been released.82. Michael Milburn, # 115296, was illegally held for 27 days before he was released

when the Parole Board determined that he had not been served the Complaint against him.

83. Russell Carrington, # 140210, was illegally held for 14 days before the ParoleBoard found him not guilty due to timeframe problems.

84. Plaintiffs were unaware of the DOCs Office of the Inspector Generalsinvestigation or conclusions concerning the conduct of Defendants.

85. All Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Morgan, were unaware of Defendant Wellssmanufacture of inculpatory evidence resulting in the unconstitutional acts described herein until

after coming into possession of relevant documents on or about February 2012 through a

Colorado Open Records Act request. Conversely, Defendants have always been aware of their

unconstitutional conduct and failed to inform Plaintiffs of the information in their possession.

The events as described herein create a presumption of equitable tolling. Equity requires a

tolling of the statutory period where flexibility is required to accomplish the goals of justice."



12/22

12

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 False Imprisonment

(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations)

(Against All Defendants)

86. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as iffully set forth herein.

87. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were acting under color of statelaw in their actions and inactions.

88. Defendants recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly keptPlaintiffs incarcerated longer than permitted by Colorado law, thereby unreasonably restricting

Plaintiffs freedom without any legal basis.

89. Plaintiffs as parolees have legitimate claims of entitlement to freedom.Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of this right of freedom secured by the Constitution and the laws

of the United States, and that the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of these rights while acting

under color of law.

90. No reasonable Community Parole Officer in Defendant Wellss position, and nosupervisor in Defendant Keller, Schumacher, Orey, Fitzpatrick, or Clementss position, with the

information each had in their possession when evaluating each Plaintiffs imprisonment, would

have concluded that each Plaintiff was lawfully imprisoned.

91. Defendants acted recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly bymodifying the arrest/hold dates on the Complaints filed against parolees, including Plaintiffs,

becoming aware that the arrest/hold dates were being improperly entered, and failing to take any

action to rectify the problem.



13/22

13

92. Based on the acts described herein, the process by which Plaintiffs werewrongfully imprisoned past the date on which they should have been served with a Complaint,

released, or given a Parole Hearing, was so lacking in the concept of justice in a civilized society

that Plaintiffs were never actually provided legal process and, therefore, were falsely imprisoned

by Defendants.

93. Defendant Supervisors recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully, andwantonly participated in, knew of, condoned, and/or approved the wrongful acts of Defendant

Wells, described herein, with the intent and understanding to bring about Plaintiffs

unconstitutional confinement.

94. Criminal/Professional Standards Investigators with DOCs Office of the InspectorGeneral put Defendants on notice of Defendant Wellss unlawful conduct, recommended

disciplinary actions and criminal charges against him. Defendants resisted all attempts by

DOCs Office of the Inspector General to have Defendant Wellss conduct be brought to the

publics attention and to in any way discipline or take any corrective/remedial measures against

Defendant Wells.

95. Despite being aware of Defendant Wellss unlawful conduct, DefendantSupervisors, the officials responsible for assuring that such misconduct does not occur,

consistently failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline individual officers such as

Defendant Well, who have engaged in such misconduct.

96. This culture and environment of constitutional violations against parolees and thelack of training, supervision, and discipline of parole officers is evidenced by, among other

things, the sheer volume of parolees whose constitutional rights have been violated repeatedly

without consequence.



14/22

14

97. Defendant Supervisors failed to adequately train, supervise, discipline and/ormonitor their subordinates to prevent the acts described herein. This failure inevitably led to the

unlawful imprisonment of Plaintiffs. In light of the duties and responsibility of these Defendants

to train, supervise, and exercise control over Defendant Wells, the need for scrutiny and

specialized training and supervision regarding preventing the acts described herein, so as to

ensure that Plaintiffs were not subject to unlawful imprisonment, was so obvious, and the

inadequacy of the training and supervision provided so likely to result in the violation of Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights of parolees, that Defendant Supervisors failure to train,

supervise, monitor and discipline amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights

of persons, including Plaintiffs, with whom DOC comes into contact.

98. Defendant Supervisors not only failed to adequately train, supervise, monitor anddiscipline, but also knew of, condoned, and approved the wrongful acts of Defendant Wells that

resulted in Plaintiffs unlawful imprisonment and other constitutional violations as described

herein.

99. Given the long-term and widespread nature of the acts described herein,Defendant Supervisors knew of a substantial risk of Plaintiffs unconstitutional imprisonment

and other constitutional violations as described herein.

100. As described herein, Defendant Supervisors had long-standing, department-widecustoms, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed Defendant Wellss acts described herein.

101. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutionalimprisonment of Plaintiffs, described herein, were necessarily consciously approved by

Defendant Supervisors represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from



15/22

15

among various alternatives, and were the moving force behind the constitutional violations

described herein.

102. The acts or omissions of each Defendant, including the customs, policies, and/oractual practices described above, were the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiffs

unconstitutional imprisonment and other constitutional violations described herein causing the

injuries alleged herein.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 Deprivation of Liberty without Due Process

(Fourteenth Amendment Violation)


103. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as thoughfully set forth herein.

104. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants were actingpursuant to municipal custom, policy, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiffs.

105. Defendants knew or should have known that DOC employees, includingDefendant Wells, were improperly recording the arrest/hold dates on Complaints filed against

parolees, resulting in the unlawful imprisonment of parolees.

106. Nevertheless, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs constitutional right not tobe unlawfully imprisoned without due process, protected by the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants allowed Plaintiffs to be held for more than ten working days

without a Complaint filed against them and/or to be held for more than thirty days without a

Parole Hearing. They did so despite their knowledge of the obvious, serious risk of unlawful

detention of parolees.

107. The acts or omissions of all Defendants were conducted within the scope of theirofficial duties and employment.



16/22

16

108. Defendants unconstitutional policies, customs, or practices, as described herein,were the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiffs unlawful detention.

109. The actions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiffs ofdue process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the

United States of America, and caused them other damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 Failure to Train, Supervise, Discipline, and/or Monitor

(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations)

(Against Defendants Supervisors in their Individual and Official Capacities)

110. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint is though fullyset forth herein.

111. Defendant Supervisors failed to properly train and supervise their employees toavoid the unlawful detention of parolees within DOCs custody.

112. Defendant Supervisors knew, or should have known, that their subordinateemployees would cause parolees to be detained longer than permissible under Colorado law and

DOC Administrative Regulations without due process, violating the parolees constitutional

rights.

113. Defendant Supervisors were deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights ofparolees, knowing that DOC employees (particularly Community Parole Officers), including

Defendant Wells, were improperly recording hold/arrest dates on Complaints filed against

parolees, including Plaintiffs. Defendant Supervisors could have and should have pursued

reasonable methods for the training and supervising of such employees, but failed to do so.

114. DOCs policies, customs, or practices in failing to properly train, supervise,discipline and/or monitor its employees, as enforced by Defendant Supervisors, were the moving

force and proximate cause of the violation to Plaintiffs constitutional rights.



17/22

17

115. The acts or omissions of Defendant Supervisors caused Plaintiffs damages in thatthey were incarcerated longer than they lawfully could have been.

116. Despite being on notice of Defendant Wellss repeated violations of eachPlaintiffs constitutional rights and Defendant Wellss deficient training; Defendants did not

provide additional training to Defendant Wells, thereby tacitly approving of the widespread and

rampant constitutional violations caused by its subordinates.

117. The actions of Defendants Supervisors as described herein deprived Plaintiffs ofthe rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States

of America, and caused them other damages.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 Fundamental Unfairness of Plaintiffs Parole Revocations

(14th

Amendment Procedural and Substantive Due Process Violations)


118. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as iffully set forth herein.

119. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactionswhich occurred at all times relevant to this action.

120. Plaintiffs have a protected liberty interest in freedom from incarceration by theState and parole revocation that complies with all constitutional requirements.

121. By engaging in one or more of the following acts, each Defendant, as detailedabove and acting recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully and wantonly, played a personal

and essential role in ensuring that Plaintiffs parole revocation hearings lacked fundamental

fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice: (1) systematically destroying,

hiding, and withholding exculpatory evidence; (2) systematically manufacturing inculpatory

evidence that was designed to promulgate the arrest, prosecution and continued confinement and



18/22

18

using this evidence against him by presenting such evidence to parole hearing officers; (3)

Defendant Wells committing perjury as found by the Office of the Inspector General; (4) actively

discouraging and/or denying sharing of exculpatory evidence with Plaintiffs prior to revocation

hearings; (5) failing to train, supervise, discipline and/or monitor to prevent the above

constitutional violations; and (6) failing to establish policies, customs, and/or practices to prevent

the above constitutional violations.

122. The actions by Defendants described herein recklessly, knowingly, intentionally,willfully and wantonly caused Plaintiffs to be unconstitutionally revoked from parole,

prosecuted, convicted and confined were so egregious and were carried out in manner that

shocks the judicial conscience, that they constituted deprivation of Constitutional dimension.

123. Defendants Supervisors respectively, recklessly, knowingly, intentionally,willfully and wantonly, participated in, knew of, condoned and/or approved the wrongful acts of

Defendants Wells with the intent and understanding to bring about Plaintiffs unconstitutional

parole revocation, prosecution, conviction and continued confinement.

124. As described above, Defendant Supervisors failed to adequately train, supervise,monitor and/or discipline their subordinates to prevent the acts described herein. This failure

inevitably led to unlawful parole revocations against Plaintiffs that lacked the fundamental

fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In light of the duties and responsibility of these

Defendants to train, supervise, and exercise control over Defendant Wells and other parole

officers, the need for scrutiny and specialized training and supervision regarding preventing the

acts described herein, so as to allow for a fundamentally fair parole revocation process, was so

obvious, and the inadequacy of the training, supervision, monitoring and/or discipline provided

so likely to result in the violation of Due Process rights that Defendant Supervisors failure train,



19/22

19

supervise, monitor and discipline amounts to deliberate indifference to the due process rights of

persons, including Plaintiffs.

125. Defendant Supervisors not only failed to adequately train, supervise, monitorand/or discipline but also knew of, condoned and approved the wrongful acts of Defendant Wells

resulted in Plaintiffs unreasonable and wrongful parole revocation and incarceration.

126. Given the long-term and widespread nature of the acts described herein,Defendants knew of a substantial risk of Plaintiffs unconstitutional parole revocation process,

conviction and incarceration.

127.

As described above, Defendants had long-standing, department-wide customs,

policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional acts described herein.

128. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutionalparole revocation process and incarceration of Plaintiffs as described herein were necessarily

consciously approved by Defendants and represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of

action made from among various alternatives, and were the moving force behind the

constitutional violations at issue.

129. The acts or omissions, of each Defendant, including the policies, customs, and/oractual practices described above, were the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiffs

unconstitutional parole revocation and confinement, causing their injuries alleged herein.

130. Due to the actions of each Defendant, Plaintiffs parole revocation process lackedfundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice.



20/22

20

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. 1983 Manufacture of Inculpatory Evidence

(14th Amendment Violations)


131.

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

132. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactionswhich occurred at all times relevant to this action.

133. Defendant Wells altered official documents pertaining to the charging of parolees,including Plaintiffs, in order to make it appear as though certain tasks had been accomplished

within statutory (C.R.S. 17-2-103.5) and administrative (AR 250-41(IV)(c)) required timeframes.

134. Defendant Wells fabricated inculpatory evidence by recklessly, knowingly,intentionally, willfully and wantonly altering arrest dates and transfer dates in order to perform

the unconstitutional acts as described herein upon Plaintiffs.

135. Defendants Supervisors knew of Defendant Wellss manufacture of inculpatoryevidence in order to effectuate the Plaintiffs unconstitutional parole violations.

136. Defendants Supervisors not only failed to adequately train, supervise, monitorand discipline, but also knew of, condoned and approved the wrongful acts of Defendant Wells

that resulted in Plaintiffs unreasonable and wrongful parole revocations and incarceration.

137. Given the long-term and widespread nature of the acts described herein,Defendants knew of a substantial risk of Plaintiffs unconstitutional parole revocation process,

conviction and incarceration.

138. As described above, Defendants had long-standing, department-wide customs,policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional acts described herein.



21/22

21

139. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutionalparole revocation process and incarceration of Plaintiffs as described herein were necessarily

consciously approved by Defendants and represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of

action made from among various alternatives, and were the moving force behind the

constitutional violation at issue.

140. The acts or omissions, of each Defendant, including the policies, customs, and/oractual practices described above, were the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiffs

unconstitutional parole revocation and confinement, causing their injuries alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their

favor and against each of the Defendants, and award them all relief allowed by law, including but

not limited to the following:

(a)Appropriate relief at law and equity;(b)Declaratory relief and other appropriate equitable relief;(c)Economic losses on all claims as allowed by law;(d)Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional

distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of companionship and

association with family members, and other pain and suffering on all claims

allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;

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

(f) Attorneys fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert witnessfees, on all claims allowed by law;

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



22/22

(h)Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief asallowed by law.

PLAINTIFFS HEREBY DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

DATED this 8th

day of April 2012.

RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI,LLC

S/ Siddhartha H. Rathod____________________________________

Siddhartha H. Rathod

Qusair Mohamedbhai

1518 Blake StreetDenver, CO 80202

(303) 578-4400 (w)(303) 578-4401 (f)[email protected]

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Morgan v. Department of Corrections