Justin Lecheminant Lawsuit

Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
JUSTIN LECHEMINANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;

MARK DURAN, in his individual and official capacity as a Lead Investigator and
Detective with the Denver Police Department;
TROY SANDOVAL, in his individual and official capacity as a Sergeant with the Denver
Police Department;
BRIAN PACELKO, in his individual and official capacity as a Sergeant with the Denver
Police Department;
DANIEL FELKINS, in his individual and official capacity as Corporal with the Denver
Police Department; and
ROBERT BLANC, in his individual and official capacity as an Officer with the Denver
Police Department,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Justin Lecheminant, through counsel, Tiffany Drahota of DRAHOTA DEFENSE
LLC and Christopher Decker of THE LAW OFFICES OF DECKER & JONES LLC, hereby submits his
complaint and jury demand, and in support thereof states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages against each of the Defendants for violating Mr.
Lecheminant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 42
U.S.C. §1983.
1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (damages in excess of
$75,000), 1343, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 (for attorneys’ fees and costs),
United States Constitution Amendments IV.
3. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as all
the events described occurred in Colorado, and all of the parties were residents of or maintained
offices in Colorado at all relevant times stated herein.
III. PARTIES
4. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Plaintiff Justin
Lecheminant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado.
5. Defendant City of Denver is a governmental entity operating in Denver County,
Colorado and is a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
6. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Mark Duran
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Duran is the a Lead Investigator and Detective with the
Denver Police Department and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Duran is sued in
his individual and official capacities.
7. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Troy Sandoval
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Sandoval is a Sergeant with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Sandoval is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Brian Pacelko
2
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Pacelko is a Sergeant with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Pacelko is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
9. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Daniel Felkins
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Felkins is a Corporal with the Denver Police Department
and was acting under color of state law. Defendant Felkins is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
10. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Robert Blanc
was a resident of Colorado. Defendant Blanc is an officer with the Denver Police Department and
was acting under color of state law. Defendant Blanc is sued in his individual and official
capacities.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
11. On January 1, 2019, Justin Lecheminant was driving home when he was stopped
by Defendant Felkins at West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.
12. Mr. Lecheminant was stopped for driving without his headlights on in a well-lit,
residential neighborhood.
13. Mr. Lecheminant provided Defendant Felkins with his valid driver’s license;
however, once Defendant Felkins asked Mr. Lecheminant to step out of his vehicle, Mr.
Lecheminant refused and drove away at a speed of 5 m.p.h.
14. As he watched Mr. Lecheminant drive away, Defendant Felkins informed dispatch
that Mr. Lecheminant left the scene but forgot his license, which was in Defendant Felkins’ hand
and listed a home address for Mr. Lecheminant just blocks away from where Defendant Felkins
3
had stopped him.
15. Defendant Felkins further advised dispatch that he was not going to follow Mr.
Lecheminant because he believed that Mr. Lecheminant was headed home. Defendant Felkins
advised that he would head over to Mr. Lecheminant’s house.
16. As other patrol cars began to case the area, Mr. Lecheminant was spotted parking
his car near the rear of his home.
17. Defendant Felkins got out of his patrol car to meet Mr. Lecheminant at the gate of
his fenced-in backyard.
18. When Mr. Lecheminant attempted to walk past Defendant Felkins with a bottle of
tequila in his hands, Defendant Felkins attempted to grab Mr. Lecheminant’s arm.
19. Mr. Lecheminant dodged Defendant Felkins, and in the process of doing so,
dropped the tequila bottle. Mr. Lecheminant then walked through the gate and into his fenced in
backyard.
20. As he was making his way into his gated and fenced in backyard, Mr. Lecheminant
was repeatedly yelling “I’m on private property; I’m on private property!”
21. It was also at this time that Defendant Blanc arrived on scene to assist Defendant
Felkins.
22. Instead of taking any steps to deescalate the situation or even assess the situation,
immediately upon arrive Defendant Blanc began to escalate the situation by repeatedly threatening
Mr. Lecheminant by stating, “Dude, you’re gonna get tased! You’re gonna get tased.”
4
23. Once Mr. Lecheminant made it inside of his fenced in backyard, he turned to the
officers and continued to engage them verbally claiming that they could not come on his “private
property.”
Mr. Lecheminant’s fenced in backyard.
24. Mr. Lecheminant slowly begins to back away from the officers while pointing a
finger at them saying over and over, “Get off my property. Get off my property!”
25. At no time was Mr. Lecheminant armed with any kind of weapon.
26. Defendant Blanc followed Mr. Lecheminant into the fenced in backyard pointing
the taser at him the entire time, repeatedly yelling, “You’re gonna get tased dude! You’re gonna
get tased!”
27. While simultaneously yelling, “Get on the ground or you’re gonna get tased,”
Defendant Blanc deployed his taser, which brought Mr. Lecheminant to his knees in the snow.
28. While Mr. Lecheminant was still on his knees in the snow (after being tased the
first time), Defendant Blanc ordered Mr. Lecheminant onto the ground, where he already was.
29. Mr. Lecheminant attempted to tell Defendant Blanc, “I’m on my – I’m in my
house” and was immediately tased again.
30. During the second tasing, Defendant Felkins is standing within a foot of Mr.
Lecheminant, who is on his knee and in his fenced in backyard.
5
31. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant had not attempted to make any
kind of move towards either Defendant Felkins or Defendant Blanc.
32. Mr. Lecheminant was completely stationary on his knee in the snow.
33. Defendant Blanc lied in his report indicating that “The suspect attempted to stand
up and Officer Blanc tazed him a second time, which the suspect then dropped to the ground.”
34. Upon being tased a second time, Mr. Lecheminant’s immediate and involuntary
reaction was to attempt to pull the taser prongs out of his chest.
35. Defendant Blanc then yelled, “Get on the ground face first” while sprinting at Mr.
Lecheminant and kicking him repeatedly in the face. The body worn camera shows Defendant
Blanc taking a step back three different times so that he can wind up with more force to kick Mr.
Lecheminant in the face, who was helpless and on the ground.
36. Prior to rushing Mr. Lecheminant, Defendant Blanc did not give Mr. Lecheminant
time to comply with his order that Mr. Lecheminant get on the ground face first.
37. Defendant Blanc used enough force in kicking Mr. Lecheminant that Mr.
Lecheminant fell backwards onto his back, as confirmed by Defendant Blanc in his report.
38. Thereafter, Defendant Blanc got on top of Mr. Lecheminant and continued to
6
violently beat him in the face with closed fists.
39. Defendant Blanc’s blows to Mr. Lecheminant’s face with significant enough to
break Mr. Lecheminant’s nose, puncture his eardrum, cause multiple broken ribs and cause Mr.
Lecheminant to sustain a serious concussion.
40. Although Defendant Felkins had a duty to intervene, he stood by watching until
Mr. Lecheminant was savagely beaten.
41. Only after Defendant Blanc had broken multiple bones in Mr. Lecheminant’s face
and brutalized him did Defendant Felkins reach an arm on Defendant Blanc’s shoulder to try to
pull Defendant Blanc off of Mr. Lecheminant.
42. Throughout the beating, Mr. Lecheminant can be heard yelling, “Help! Help!
Help!” over and over again.
43. The severity of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries were immediately apparent: Mr.
Lecheminant’s face began to swell immediately as blood pooled around him coloring the snow
red.
44. Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries at the scene were documented by photographs and body
worn camera footage from the officers on scene:
7
45. As Mr. Lecheminant lay in the snow with broken bones to his face, a punctured ear
drum, broken ribs, a concussion and other serious bodily injuries, Defendant Blanc yelled at him,
“That’s what you get for eluding!” as he threw down his taser.
46. After the brutal beating, unarmed Mr. Lecheminant was handcuffed and forced to
lie on the freezing for several minutes although he was wearing nothing other than a tank top.
47. When Mr. Lecheminant was finally raised to his feet, he was forced to stand outside
for several more minutes while the officers waited for emergency medical personnel to arrive.
48. Recognizing the extreme amount of force used against Mr. Lecheminant by
Defendant Blanc, Defendant Felkins immediately called for an ambulance to respond and for a
supervisor to come to the scene.
49. Defendants Blanc and Felkins report to Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval within
the chain of command.
50. As supervisors within the chain of command, Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval
have the ability to determine whether an officer used appropriate force under the circumstances,
which is why Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval responded to the scene on January 1, 2019.
8
51. When Defendant Sandoval arrived on scene, he made contact with Mr.
Lecheminant, who was handcuffed and in custody of the Denver Police Department but positioned
in the back of an ambulance due to the severity of his injuries.
52. Despite Mr. Lecheminant being in custody, but without informing him of his
Miranda rights, Defendant Sandoval attempted to question Mr. Lecheminant about the incident.
53. Mr. Lecheminant immediately invoked his right to an attorney, but Defendant
Sandoval persisted and conducted a minute-long interview with Mr. Lecheminant.
54. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not conduct oral interviews of
either Defendant Blanc or Defendant Felkins on body worn camera video, despite having the
opportunity to do so on the scene.
55. Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko did this intentionally to ensure that Defendants
Felkins and Blanc’ reports were consistent with one another, to ensure that there were no other
eyewitnesses prior to Defendants Felkins and Blanc writing their reports and giving a statement,
and to ensure that Defendants Felkins and Blanc had an opportunity to calm down after the incident
and not appear on camera to be aggressive or erratic.
56. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s clothing for alleged stretch marks from where Defendant Blanc alleged Mr. Lecheminant
pulled on his clothes. Defedants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s clothing because it would have been favorable to Mr. Lecheminant insomuch as there was
no evidence that this actually happened.
9
57. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval intentionally did not photograph Defendant
Blanc’s fists, knuckles or boots, because that sort of documentation would provide further evidence
of Defendant Blanc’s violent and excessive use of force against Mr. Lecheminant.
58. Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval did no investigation whatsoever to determine the
nature and extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s physical and emotional injuries.
59. In fact, no medical records were ever obtained by the Denver Police Department of
Mr. Lecheminant’s medical condition and no follow-up inquiry was conducted to determine the
extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries by Defendants Pacelko, Sandoval or Duran.
60. Defendants Pacelko, Sandoval and Duran intentionally did not investigate the
extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries because doing so would have provided evidence directly in
contrast with Defendants Blanc and Felkins narratives by demonstrating that the degree of force
used was greater than necessary to effect the arrest of Mr. Lecheminant.
61. Defendant Blanc alleged that Mr. Lecheminant cut Defendant Blanc’s finger, which
was documented at the scene:
62. There was no testing done at the scene, or anytime thereafter, to confirm whether
the blood on Defendant Blanc’s hand was actually Defendant Blanc’s blood and not Mr.
Lecheminant’s blood.
10
63. Upon information and belief, Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko’s investigation
ended at the scene when they took no additional action to condone Defendant Blanc and Felkins
actions.
64. Upon information and belief, Defendants Blanc and Felkins were never placed on
any administrative leave (paid or unpaid) while the use of force “investigation” was pending. This
is because Defendants Sandoval and Pacelko immediately agreed with the use of force used by
Defendant Blanc and the failure to intervene by Defendant Felkins, and ratified the
unconstitutional conduct of Defendants Blanc and Felkins on scene on January 1, 2019.
65. Defendant Duran was tasked with collecting the remaining paperwork and video
footage for the Use of Force review, which he did.
66. After collecting the paperwork and body camera footage, and reading the
statements and watching the videos, Defendant Duran, on behalf of the City of Denver, ratified the
use of force on Mr. Lecheminant. Defendant Duran recommended that the City of Denver engage
in no further investigation of the incident and Defendants Felkins and Blanc were cleared of any
misconduct.
67. Meanwhile, Mr. Lecheminant was then charged with serious felony crimes, which
he did not commit.
68. Mr. Lecheminant was charged with four counts of Second Degree Assault on a
Peace Officer, two of the counts listed Defendant Felkins as the victim and two of the counts listed
Defendant Blanc as the victim.
69. The four felony charges of Second-Degree Assault on a Peace Officer carried
mandatory, consecutive prison time that Mr. Lecheminant would be forced to serve if convicted.
11
70. In addition to having to worry about serving a significant prison sentence if
convicted on four counts felony assault, Mr. Lecheminant was fired from his job by his employer.
71. Ultimately, the Denver District Attorney’s Office elected not to prosecute Mr.
Lecheminant for anything that happened at his home on January 1, 2019 and all four felony charges
of Second-Degree Assault on a Peace Officer were dismissed against Mr. Lecheminant.
72. Mr. Lecheminant did plead guilty to one count vehicular eluding and one count
obstruction for his failure to get out of his vehicle when Mr. Lecheminant was first pulled over at
West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.
73. That plea agreement contained a stipulated factual basis between the parties that
the criminal acts engaged in were those at West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard, and unrelated
to the incident involving Defendant Blanc at Mr. Lecheminant’s home later that evening.
74. Stated another way, Mr. Lecheminant was not criminally prosecuted criminally for
anything that he did at his home on January 1, 2019.
75. For a significant period of time after the incident, Mr. Lecheminant suffered
memory loss, confusion, disorientation and other memory and cognitive problems.
76. The physical injuries sustained by Mr. Lecheminant at the hands of Defendants
Blanc and Felkins also caused extreme emotional distress for all members of the Lecheminant
family, which resulted in additional stress, humiliation, and loss of sleep for Mr. Lecheminant.
77. Mr. Lecheminant’s disabled son was so distraught at the sight of his physical
injuries, that he had an extreme panic attack and a therapist had to be called in order to assist Mr.
Lecheminant and his wife, Susan, in calming down their disabled son.
12
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 4th Amendment Violation – Excessive Force
(Mr. Lecheminant Against Defendant Blanc – First Tasing)
78. Mr. Lecheminant hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
79. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Blanc was acting under the color of state
law, and his acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of his official duties or
employment.
80. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage
of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and
law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
appropriate proceeding for redress . . .
81. Mr. Lecheminant is a citizen of the United States.
82. Defendant Blanc is a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
83. Mr. Lecheminant had a clearly established right to be free from the unlawful,
excessive force used against him.
84. Defendant Blanc lacked any reasonable basis to use physical force against Mr.
Lecheminant.
85. Defendant Blanc utilized excessive force against Mr. Lecheminant when he tased
an unarmed Mr. Lecheminant within the fenced-in confines of his backyard.
13
86. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was outnumbered by officers.
87. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was within the confines of his
fenced in backyard.
88. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was unarmed.
89. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was not making any moves towards
the officers or threatening them in any way.
90. At the time of the first tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was facing the officers and was not
fleeing the scene.
91. Defendant Blanc’s response to tase Mr. Lecheminant without attempting any other
means of gaining compliance, effecting arrest or de-escalation was an overreaction and
disproportionate use of force based upon a totality of the circumstances presented to Defendant
Blanc at the time of the initial tasing.
92. Defendant Blanc knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
established right to be free from excessive force at the time the unlawful, excessive force was used
against him.
93. Defendant Blanc’s actions, as described herein, were undertaken intentionally,
maliciously, callously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of Mr. Lecheminant’s
federally protected Fourth Amendment rights.
94. As a result of the unconstitutional conduct of Defendant Blanc, Mr. Lecheminant
has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of medical expenses,
non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones, pain and suffering,
and mental and emotional stress and humiliation.
14
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Mr. Lecheminant Against Defendant Blanc – Second Tasing)
employment.
Lecheminant.
102. Defendant Blanc utilized excessive force against Mr. Lecheminant when he tased
an unarmed Mr. Lecheminant within the fenced-in confines of his backyard a second time.
15
103. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still outnumbered by
officers.
104. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still within the confines of
his fenced in backyard.
105. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still unarmed.
106. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was still not making any moves
towards the officers or threatening them in any way.
107. At the time of the second tasing, Mr. Lecheminant was facing Officer Blanc, was
on his knee in the snow and was not attempting to flee the scene.
108. At the time of the second tasing, Defendant Felkins had moved in closer to Mr.
Lecheminant and was standing over him while Mr. Lecheminant remained on the ground.
109. Defendant Blanc’s response to tase Mr. Lecheminant a second time was as a
punishment for Mr. Lecheminant not immediately complying with Defendant Blanc’s order to go
to the ground, where Mr. Lecheminant already was.
110. It was only as Defendant Blanc was tasing Mr. Lecheminant was a second time that
he ordered Mr. Lecheminant face down in the snow.
against him.
16
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Mr. Lecheminant Against Defendant Blanc – Hands on Assault)
employment.
17
Lecheminant, who had already been tased twice and was on the ground.
121. At the time of Defendant Blanc’s violent assault of Mr. Lecheminant, Mr.
Lecheminant was on the ground, unarmed, within the confines of his fenced in backyard and
surrounded by Defendant Blanc and Defendant Felkins.
122. At the time of the violent hands-on assault of Mr. Lecheminant, Mr. Lecheminant
had not made any move towards either Defendant Felkins or Defendant Blanc, nor had Mr.
Lecheminant attempted to flee the scene.
123. Defendant Blanc’s violent assault of Mr. Lecheminant was to punish Mr.
Lecheminant because the taser only had a minimal debilitating effect against him and did not
completely paralyze Mr. Lecheminant.
124. Defendant Blanc violently assaulted Mr. Lecheminant and repeatedly struck Mr.
Lecheminant in the face with by kicking him and using his fists on Mr. Lecheminant face and
head, even after Mr. Lecheminant was on the ground, tased twice and within the confines of his
own fenced in backyard and surrounded by at least one other officer, Defendant Felkins.
against him.
18
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Mr. Lecheminant Against Defendant Felkins – Failure to Intervene)
129. At all relevant times hereto Defendant Felkins was acting under the color of state
employment.
132. Defendant Felkins is a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
Lecheminant.
135. At the time that Defendant Blanc engaged in multiple instances of excessive force
against Mr. Lecheminant, Defendant Felkins was present and witnessed how the situation between
Defendant Blanc and Mr. Lecheminant unfolded.
136. Based upon Defendant Felkins own, independent observations of Mr.
Lecheminant’s conduct, Defendant Felkins knew that Defendant Blanc was not justified in using
the degree of force against Mr. Lecheminant that Defendant Blanc repeatedly engaged in.
137. During each instance of excessive force engaged in by Defendant Blanc, Defendant
Felkins had a duty to intervene on behalf of Mr. Lecheminant.
138. Despite being present, on scene and independently observing that no use of force
was required under the circumstances, Defendant Felkins failed to intervene on behalf of Mr.
Lecheminant.
139. Defendant Felkins knew or should have known of Mr. Lecheminant’s clearly
against him.
140. Defendant Felkins’ actions or inactions, as described herein, were undertaken
intentionally, maliciously, callously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of Mr.
Lecheminant’s federally protected Fourth Amendment rights.
141. As a result of the unconstitutional failure to intervene by Defendant Felkins, Mr.
Lecheminant has suffered significant damages, including economic damages in the form of
medical expenses, non-economic damages in the form of physical disfigurement, broken bones,
pain and suffering, and mental and emotional stress and humiliation.
20
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Ratification of Defendant Blanc’s Unconstitutional Conduct
(Mr. Lecheminant Against the City of Denver, Defendant Duran, Defendant Sandoval and
Defendant Pacelko)
143. The City of Denver is an official with final policymaking authority regarding the
conduct of employees of the Denver Police Department.
144. The fact that Defendants Blanc was not placed on administrative leave, retrained,
reprimanded, counseled, investigated by an Internal Affairs board, or fired constitutes a decision
by an official with final policymaking authority to ratify the unconstitutional conduct of
Defendants Blanc.
145. The official conclusion by Defendant Pacelko and Sandoval on scene on January 1,
2019 that Defendant Blanc did not engage in unconstitutional use of excessive force constitutes an
official ratification by the City of Denver of Defendant Blanc’s unlawful conduct.
146. The City of Denver’s investigation by Defendant’s Pacelko, Sandoval and Duran,
and conclusion that no further action or investigation be conducted into the incident involving
Defendants Felkins and Duran and Mr. Lecheminant constitutes an official ratification of
Defendant Blanc’s unlawful conduct of excessive physical force against Mr. Lecheminant.
147. The City of Denver also ratified Defendant Blanc’s unconstitutional conduct by
requesting prosecution of Mr. Lecheminant with four serious felony charges.
21
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

U.S.C. § 1983 –Failure to Train and Supervise
(Mr. Lecheminant Against Defendant Pacelko, Defendant Sandoval and the City of
Denver)
149. The City of Denver failed to properly train and supervise Defendants Blanc,
Pacelko and Sandoval in the following regard: The City of Denver intentionally, recklessly or with
deliberate indifference failed to train Defendants Blanc, Pacelko and Sandoval on the
constitutional limits of use of force in engaging with unarmed criminal suspects.
150. This is evidenced by Defendant Blanc’s excessive use of force by causing serious
bodily injury to an unarmed suspect, and Defendant Pacelko and Sandoval’s inability to recognize
excessive force when an officer has almost no injuries after going hands on with an unarmed
suspect, and that suspect sustains serious bodily injury.
151. The City of Denver intentionally, recklessly or with deliberate indifference failed
to train Defendants Pacelko and Sandoval on giving Miranda rights to criminal suspects that are
in custody and subject to custodial interrogation by the police;
152. Defendant Blanc’s attack on Mr. Lecheminant, and his resulting injuries are a direct
consequence of Defendant Pacelko, Defendant Sandoval and the City of Denver’s failure to
properly train and supervise Defendant Blanc.
153. Defendant Pacelko, Defendant Sandoval and the City of Denver intentionally,
recklessly, or with deliberate indifference failed to properly train and supervise Defendant Blanc.
22
154. The lack of training of Defendant Blanc is evidenced by the violent response he
had while on duty and engaging with unarmed Mr. Lecheminant, who at the time of their
interaction was in his fenced in backyard and on the ground.
155. The lack of training and supervision is also evidenced by Defendant Pacelko,
Defendant Sandoval, Defendant Duran and the City of Denver’s hasty investigation, which
contained little to no actual fact-finding as it related to Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries, and the almost
immediate recommendation that no further investigation into Defendant Blanc’s conduct be taken
and the clearing of Defendant Blanc of any wrongdoing.
156. The lack training of Defendants Blanc, Pacelko and Sandoval caused Mr.
Lecheminant’s injuries, damages and losses.
157. The actions or omissions as described herein deprived Mr. Lecheminant of the
rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of
America.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Lecheminant respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
his favor and against each of the Defendants, and award him all relief allowed by law, including
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 self-esteem, damage to reputation, 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
23
determined at trial;
f. Attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action, including expert
witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;
g. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the appropriate lawful rate;
h. Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief
as allowed by law.
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO

TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of May, 2020.
DRAHOTA DEFENSE LLC
/s/ Tiffany J. Drahota

Tiffany Drahota
Drahota Defense LLC
3200 Cherry Creek South Drive
Suite 720
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (402) 651-0383
Email: tiffany@drahotadefense.com
THE LAW OFFICES OF DECKER & JONES
s/ Christopher R. Decker
_________________________________
Christopher R. Decker
The Law Offices of Decker & Jones LLC
226 West 12th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
Telephone: (303) 573-5253
Email: cdecker@deckerjoneslaw.com
24

Justin Lecheminant Lawsuit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Justin Lecheminant Lawsuit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:20-cv-01246-NRN Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Justin Lecheminant, through counsel, Tiffany Drahota of DRAHOTA DEFENSE

complaint and jury demand, and in support thereof states as follows:

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (damages in excess of

United States Constitution Amendments IV.

3. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as all

offices in Colorado at all relevant times stated herein.

5. Defendant City of Denver is a governmental entity operating in Denver County,

Colorado and is a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

his individual and official capacities.

by Defendant Felkins at West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.

Lecheminant refused and drove away at a speed of 5 m.p.h.

had stopped him.

advised that he would head over to Mr. Lecheminant’s house.

his car near the rear of his home.

his fenced-in backyard.

was repeatedly yelling “I’m on private property; I’m on private property!”

Mr. Lecheminant’s fenced in backyard.

29. Mr. Lecheminant attempted to tell Defendant Blanc, “I’m on my – I’m in my

house” and was immediately tased again.

Lecheminant, who is on his knee and in his fenced in backyard.

kind of move towards either Defendant Felkins or Defendant Blanc.

Lecheminant in the face, who was helpless and on the ground.

violently beat him in the face with closed fists.

Lecheminant to sustain a serious concussion.

Mr. Lecheminant was savagely beaten.

pull Defendant Blanc off of Mr. Lecheminant.

Help!” over and over again.

worn camera footage from the officers on scene:

supervisor to come to the scene.

the chain of command.

in the back of an ambulance due to the severity of his injuries.

Sandoval persisted and conducted a minute-long interview with Mr. Lecheminant.

opportunity to do so on the scene.

and not appear on camera to be aggressive or erratic.

no evidence that this actually happened.

nature and extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s physical and emotional injuries.

extent of Mr. Lecheminant’s injuries by Defendants Pacelko, Sandoval or Duran.

was documented at the scene:

unconstitutional conduct of Defendants Blanc and Felkins on scene on January 1, 2019.

footage for the Use of Force review, which he did.

he did not commit.

Defendant Blanc as the victim.

70. In addition to having to worry about serving a significant prison sentence if

of Second-Degree Assault on a Peace Officer were dismissed against Mr. Lecheminant.

West 25th Avenue and Federal Boulevard.

anything that he did at his home on January 1, 2019.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

fully set forth herein.

80. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:

of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected

deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and

appropriate proceeding for redress . . .

81. Mr. Lecheminant is a citizen of the United States.

82. Defendant Blanc is a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

excessive force used against him.

an unarmed Mr. Lecheminant within the fenced-in confines of his backyard.

the officers or threatening them in any way.

fleeing the scene.