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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. ____________________ JOHN MORGAN; DUSTIN COOK; PAUL STARK; and JERROD THOELE; Plaintiffs, v. TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, in his official capacity; JEFFREY WELLS, Community Parole Officer, in his individual and official capacities; JIM KELLER, Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Team Leader, in his individual and official 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 2 of 22

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 is

brought 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). All

of 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 United

States 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 United

States and a resident of the State of Colorado, and was on parole with the Colorado Department of Corrections.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22

5.

At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Paul Stark was a citizen of the United States

and 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 United

States 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 the

State 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 of

Colorado. 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 of

Colorado. 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 the

State 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.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22

11.

Defendant John Orey is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of

Colorado. 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 of

the 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 (Defendant

Supervisors) are Defendant Wellss supervisors. 15. with DOC. 16. In February 2011, Ed Herndon, a Criminal/Professional Standards Investigator Defendant Wells made misrepresentations on his pre-employment application

with 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 Defendant

Wells had repeatedly held parolees, once they were arrested, longer than permitted by Colorado law and DOC Administrative Regulations.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22

18.

Colorado law and DOC Administrative Regulations require that a parolee be

served 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 that

Defendant 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 the

Parole 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 Wellss

supervisors 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 chronology

entries 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, DOC

failed 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

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22

herein against Plaintiffs, and constitutes an unconstitutional policy, procedure, custom and/or practice. 24. Defendant Wells altered official documents pertaining to the charging of parolees

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. 25. Defendant Wells was intentionally deceptive on his DOC employment application

and integrity interview. 26. DOC has a culture of tolerating constitutional violations by parole officers against

parolees. 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 officers

misconduct, 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 Special

Operations 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 parole

officers were aware of this requirement. 30. Defendant Fitzpatrick also instructed DOC supervisors to ensure that all parole

officers knew how to verify that all Complaints contained the correct hold/arrest date.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22

31.

Defendant Fitzpatrick took no action to determine whether his instructions were

carried 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 Wells

stated 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 the

investigation 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 Plaintiffs

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. 35. 28, 2009. 36. On September 1, 2009, Defendant Wells initiated Complaint number 62775, Plaintiff Morgan was originally released from prison and placed on parole on July

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 to

the Mesa County Jail.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22

39.

The following day, September 22, 2009, Defendant Wells initiated Complaint

number 62775, indicating a hold date of September 22. 40. The hold date should have been September 21; Defendant Wells manually

changed the hold date. 41. 42. On October 5, 2009, Complaint 62775 was filed with the Parole Board. 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. 46. On October 15, 2009, Mr. Morgan should have been released from jail. 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 Park

County 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 hold

prevented Mr. Morgan from bonding out of jail. 50. Mr. Morgans Parole Hearing was continued multiple times.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22

51. DOC custody. 52. 2010. 53. 2010. 54. 55.

On March 11, 2010, Mr. Morgans parole was revoked and he was returned to

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

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

Plaintiff Cook was released from prison and placed on parole on July 10, 2007. 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 on

November 6, 2009. 57. 58. 59. On November 9, 2009, Complaint number 63445 was filed with the Parole Board. The Complaint indicated a hold date of November 6, 2009. 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 before

November 29, 2009. 61. Mr. Cooks Parole Hearing was held on December 3, 2009, more than 30 calendar

days from his actual arrest date of October 30, 2009. 62. Mr. Cooks parole was revoked at that Parole Hearing. Mr. Cook was unlawfully

held from November 29, 2009, until he was released back onto parole on April 28, 2010.

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22

63. 11, 2007. 64. 65.

Mr. Stark was originally released from prison and placed on parole on October

Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Stark on December 27, 2008. 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 Board

dismissed the Complaint against Mr. Stark. 67. Mr. Stark was released from jail on January 14, 2009, after having been

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

Park County Jail. 70. Mr. Stark. 71. The Complaint reflected a hold date of August 4, 2009, despite the fact that Mr. On August 17, 2009, Defendant Wells filed Complaint number 61696A against

Stark was actually arrested on July 30, 2009. 72. Due to the false hold date, the Parole Board thought that Defendant Wells had met

the ten-day requirement. 73. 74. Mr. Starks Parole Hearing was continued until September 17, 2009. 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 been

unlawfully held for a total of 45 days.

10

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22

76. 77. hold on him. 78.

Mr. Thoele was originally placed on parole on September 8, 2010. On January 27, 2011, Defendant Wells arrested Mr. Thoele and placed an arrest

Mr. Thoele should have been released on February 10, 2011, but remained

unlawfully imprisoned until February 18, 2011. 79. Plaintiffs were not the only parolees who were unlawfully imprisoned due to

Defendant Wellss conduct and DOCs failure to train or supervise Defendant Wells. 80. Christopher White, #140360, was illegally held a total of 26 days after Defendant

Wells twice failed to file a Complaint within ten working days of arresting Mr. White. 81. 82. Adam Garcia, #133371, spent 11 days in jail after he should have been released. 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 Parole

Board found him not guilty due to timeframe problems. 84. Plaintiffs were unaware of the DOCs Office of the Inspector Generals

investigation or conclusions concerning the conduct of Defendants. 85. All Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Morgan, were unaware of Defendant Wellss

manufacture 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."

11

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

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 if

fully set forth herein. 87. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were acting under color of state

law in their actions and inactions. 88. Defendants recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and wantonly kept

Plaintiffs 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 no

supervisor 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 by

modifying 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.

12

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22

92.

Based on the acts described herein, the process by which Plaintiffs were

wrongfully 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, and

wantonly 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 Inspector

General 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, Defendant

Supervisors, 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 the

lack 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.

13

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22

97.

Defendant Supervisors failed to adequately train, supervise, discipline and/or

monitor 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 and

discipline, 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-wide

customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed Defendant Wellss acts described herein. 101. The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional

imprisonment of Plaintiffs, described herein, were necessarily consciously approved by Defendant Supervisors represent a deliberate choice to follow a course of action made from

14

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22

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/or

actual 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) (Against All Defendants) 103. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as though

fully set forth herein. 104. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants were acting

pursuant to municipal custom, policy, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiffs. 105. Defendants knew or should have known that DOC employees, including

Defendant 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 to

be 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 their

official duties and employment.

15

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22

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 of

due 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 fully

set forth herein. 111. Defendant Supervisors failed to properly train and supervise their employees to

avoid the unlawful detention of parolees within DOCs custody. 112. Defendant Supervisors knew, or should have known, that their subordinate

employees 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 of

parolees, 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.

16

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22

115.

The acts or omissions of Defendant Supervisors caused Plaintiffs damages in that

they were incarcerated longer than they lawfully could have been. 116. Despite being on notice of Defendant Wellss repeated violations of each

Plaintiffs 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 of

the 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) (Against All Defendants) 118. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth herein. 119. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions

which occurred at all times relevant to this action. 120. Plaintiffs have a protected liberty interest in freedom from incarceration by the

State and parole revocation that complies with all constitutional requirements. 121. By engaging in one or more of the following acts, each Defendant, as detailed

above 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

17

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22

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,

18

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22

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, monitor

and/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 unconstitutional

parole 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/or

actual 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 lacked

fundamental fairness to a degree that shocks the universal sense of justice.

19

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Manufacture of Inculpatory Evidence (14th Amendment Violations) (Against All Defendants) 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 inactions

which 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 inculpatory

evidence in order to effectuate the Plaintiffs unconstitutional parole violations. 136. Defendants Supervisors not only failed to adequately train, supervise, monitor

and 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.

20

Case 1:12-cv-00936 Document 1 Filed 04/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22

139.

The customs, policies, and/or actual practices that allowed the unconstitutional

parole 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/or

actual 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 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; and

21

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

(h) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as allowed 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 Street Denver, CO 80202 (303) 578-4400 (w) (303) 578-4401 (f) sr@rmlawyers.com qm@rmlawyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

22