Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
ERIC MAGNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Eric Magne, by and through counsel, Darold W. Killmer and Reid Allison of
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, and Charles G. Crosse and Michael J. Lazar of CROSSE LAW
LLC, respectfully alleges for his Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On the night of October 29, 2016, Plaintiff Eric Magne was brutalized twice in the
span of an hour at the Clear Creek County Jail. The officer responsible for the first assault on Mr.
Magne—Defendant Jon Geiger—was criminally indicted for his actions, and pled guilty. The
second assault on Mr. Magne left him lying in a pool of his own blood that was pouring from a
severe head wound. Rather than provide Mr. Magne immediate medical attention, the officer
who attacked him, as well as the officer’s colleagues, pinned Mr. Magne to the ground and
traumatic brain injury that has limited his cognitive functioning, as well as other severe physical
and emotional damages and continuing trauma, injuries and damages from his brutal ordeal.
3. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
5. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs is conferred
by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
of the events alleged herein occurred within the State of Colorado, and all of the parties were
residents of the State at the time of the events giving rise to this litigation.
III. PARTIES
Plaintiff
7. Plaintiff, Eric Magne, is a citizen of the United States and at all relevant times
Defendants
and is a “person” subject to liability and suit within the meaning and scope of Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. The jail is operated and governed by the policies, practices, customs and
supervision of the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department, not the county Board of County
Commissioners.
2
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Michael Hansen was a citizen
of the United States, resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado and was acting under
color of state law in his capacity as an officer employed by the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s
Office.
10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jon Geiger was a citizen of the
United States, resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado and was acting under color of
state law in his capacity as a police officer with the Georgetown Police Department.
11. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants
John and Jane Doe I-III (two males and one female) were citizens of the United States, residents
of and domiciled in the State of Colorado and were acting under color of state law in their
capacities as deputies of the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Office or possibly police officers with
the Georgetown Police Department. These law enforcement officers were present during some
or all of the events described herein and are identifiable by photographic and/or textual
12. On the night of October 28-29, 2016, in Georgetown, Colorado, Eric Magne was
13. Mr. Magne informed the arresting Georgetown Police Department Officer,
Defendant Jon Geiger, that he was on nerve medication because of a head injury he had
14. Defendant Geiger transported Mr. Magne to the Clear Creek County Jail.
3
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
15. At the time of Mr. Magne’s arrest and transport to the jail, 5th Judicial District
Deputy District Attorney Susan Deschler was on a ride-along with Defendant Geiger in his patrol
car.
16. As Defendant Geiger was booking Mr. Magne into the jail, Mr. Magne asked if he
17. Defendant Geiger agreed to the request, and Mr. Magne went to the holding cell
18. The door would not stay closed, so Mr. Magne pulled it three times in quick
succession to attempt to secure it closed and to alert Defendant Geiger—who was sitting behind
19. Instead of helping Mr. Magne secure the door, Defendant Geiger rushed over and
20. Though Magne was not resisting, Defendant Geiger grabbed Mr. Magne by the
wrist, violently wrenched his arm behind his back and pinned him against a wall such that Mr.
21. The screenshot below (from a jail security video attached to this Complaint as
Exhibit A) illustrates Defendant Geiger’s objectively unnecessary use of excessive force against
Mr. Magne:
4
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
22. Defendant Geiger kept Mr. Magne pinned against the wall with his arm wrenched
23. Defendant Geiger’s infliction of excessive force against Mr. Magne caused
significant pain, fright, discomfort and trauma to him, and was well in excess of the force
24. Mr. Magne’s conduct did not warrant the use of the level of force that Defendant
Geiger used against him. Mr. Magne was not armed, was not attempting to flee, was not
improperly resisting, and was not threatening Defendant Geiger or anyone else.
25. Within moments of Defendant Geiger beginning his excessive force against Mr.
Magne, Defendant Clear Creek County Deputy Michael Hansen entered the booking area and
stood mere feet away, doing nothing to intervene to prevent his colleagues’ use of obviously
excessive force. Deputy District Attorney Deschler was also present for Defendant Geiger’s use
of excessive force.
5
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
26. Defendant Geiger was subsequently indicted by a grand jury and pled guilty to
27. The contents of the video surveillance of the foregoing event, attached as Exhibit
28. Approximately an hour later, Defendant Hansen took Mr. Magne to the intake
29. The medication Mr. Magne was taking for his previous injury—of which he had
informed the arresting officer—prevented him from being able to control the saliva in his mouth.
30. As he was being fingerprinted, Mr. Magne noticed that while talking to Defendant
Hansen some of his saliva had landed on the badge on Defendant Hansen’s shoulder sleeve.
31. Mr. Magne attempted to clean the saliva from Defendant Hansen’s shoulder.
32. Without any provocation or warning, and despite the fact that Mr. Magne had at
no point resisted or threatened him or any other officer in any way, Defendant Hansen then
grabbed Mr. Magne by the neck and violently swung his head into a metal door frame, as
illustrated in the screenshot below (taken from a jail security video attached as Exhibit B):
6
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
34. Mr. Magne collapsed onto the floor from the force of Defendant Hansen’s
35. While Mr. Magne was prone on the floor bleeding from an obvious head wound,
Defendant Hansen then placed all of his bodyweight on Mr. Magne’s head and neck, pinning
7
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
36. As Defendant Hansen continued to pin Mr. Magne to the ground and the pool of
blood from his head grew to an alarming size, Defendants John and Jane Doe I-III arrived on the
scene.
37. Rather than intervene to prevent Defendant Hansen’s obvious, continued use of
excessive force against a man who was unarmed, defenseless, and clearly severely injured,
Defendants Doe I-III proceeded to pile their bodyweight on top of Mr. Magne, as illustrated in
8
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
38. DDA Deschler was also present in the jail during the officers’ use of excessive
39. The Defendants then stood around Mr. Magne as he suffered an apparent set of
convulsions/seizures while bleeding and now handcuffed on the floor, as illustrated in the
screenshot below (the video of the event, attached hereto as Exhibit B, depicts the
9
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
40. Despite having witnessed and been aware of the convulsions and seizures Mr.
Magne was having, Defendants did not reduce the restraints on Mr. Magne, unreasonably and
41. As a result of this violent assault, Mr. Magne suffered intense and prolonged pain,
a traumatic brain injury, significant fright and emotional trauma and distress, and a severe head
42. Although his head wound eventually healed, Mr. Magne sustained permanent
injuries to his brain and has developed a seizure disorder, resulting from the Defendants’
unconstitutional conduct.
43. Mr. Magne has also suffered continuing emotional and psychological damages
and injuries related to the conduct and omissions of both Deputy Hansen and Deputy Geiger, as
44. The Defendants’ blatantly unconstitutional actions have inflicted grave and
10
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
45. As a result of the Defendants’ unconstitutional actions, Mr. Magne has sustained
injuries and damages, including but not limited to the following: past, present and future pain
and suffering; past, present and future hospital and medical expenses; past and future lost wages;
of life; emotional distress, shock, fright, and worry; and other injuries.
46. The contents of the video surveillance of the foregoing event, attached as Exhibit
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment Violation – Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Geiger and Hansen)
47. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
48. Defendants Geiger and Hansen were acting under color of state law during their
49. At the time when Defendant Geiger wrenched Mr. Magne’s arm behind him and
pinned him against a wall with excessive force, Mr. Magne had a clearly established
constitutional right to be secure in his person from being subjected to excessive force by officers
50. At the time Defendant Hansen observed Defendant Geiger wrenching Mr.
Magne’s arm behind him and pinning him against the wall, Mr. Magne had a clearly established
constitutional right for Defendant Hansen to intervene to prevent his fellow officer’s use of
obviously excessive force in violation of the United States and Colorado Constitutions.
11
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
51. Defendants herein knew, and any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or
52. Defendant Geiger engaged in use of force that was objectively unreasonable in
light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, violating Mr. Magne’s Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
53. Defendants Geiger’s and Hansen’s respective actions and inactions, as described
54. Defendants Geiger’s and Hansen’s respective actions and inactions, as described
55. The acts and omissions of each Defendant described herein, were the legal and
56. The acts or omissions of Defendants Geiger and Hansen caused Mr. Magne to
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment Violation – Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Clear Creek County, Hansen and Does I-III)
57. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
58. Defendants Hansen and Does I-III were acting under color of state law during
12
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
59. At the time when Defendant Hansen violently swung Mr. Magne’s head into a
wall, Mr. Magne had a clearly established constitutional right to be secure in his person from
excessive force.
60. At the time Defendants Does I-III observed Defendant Hansen pinning Mr.
Magne to the ground with all of his bodyweight as Mr. Magne bled profusely from his head, and
then joined in the physical restraint and use of force on an unarmed, defenseless and injured man,
Mr. Magne had a clearly established constitutional right for Defendants Doe I-III to intervene to
61. Defendants herein knew, and any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or
62. Defendant Hansen engaged in use of force that was objectively unreasonable in
light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, violating Mr. Magne’s Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
63. Defendants Hansen’s and Does I-III respective actions and inactions, as described
64. Defendants Hansen’s and Does I-III respective actions and inactions, as described
65. The acts and omissions of each Defendant described herein, were the legal and
66. The acts or omissions of Defendants Hansen and Does I-III caused Mr. Magne to
13
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
67. Defendant Clear Creek County, through the operation and supervision of the
Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Office, is responsible for the hiring, training and supervision of the
68. The mission of the jail, as reflected on its official website, is “to provide for the
safe, secure and wholesome care, custody and control of all inmates and detainees incarcerated
69. The conduct of Defendant Hansen and Defendant Does I-III, as described more
particularly herein, was engaged in pursuant to and consistent with the training, customs, policies
and practices of the Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department regarding proper law enforcement
70. Clear Creek County Sheriff’s Department’s training, customs, policies and
practices caused the injuries, damages and losses suffered by Mr. Magne. These injuries,
damages and losses were foreseeably consequences of the policies designed, implemented and
71. None of the Clear Creek County Defendants were counseled or disciplined
72. Defendant Clear Creek County approved and ratified the conduct of Clear Creek
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and
against Defendants, and award him all relief as allowed by law and equity, including, but not
14
Case 1:18-cv-02741 Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15
c. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to those for past and future
mental anguish, hedonic damages, loss of enjoyment of life, medical bills, and
at trial;
Charles G. Crosse
Michael J. Lazar
CROSSE LAW LLC
360 S. Garfield Street
Denver, CO 80209
(303) 839-1137
charliecrosse@crosselaw.com
mikelazar@crosselaw.com
15