Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. _________

ESTATE OF SAMUEL CARL ENGLAND FORGY by and through GLEN FORGY, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of Samuel Forgy,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF BOULDER, a municipality;

OFFICER DILLON GARRETSON, in his individual capacity;

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

______________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys David Lane, and Eleanor Wedum, of KILLMER,

LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, and Kathryn Stimson of STIMSON GLOVER STANCIL LEEDY LLC ,

respectfully allege for their Complaint as follows:

I. Introduction

1. On July 27, 2015, at approximately 10:39 p.m., Defendant Dillon Garretson, a

Boulder Police Officer, shot and killed 22-year-old Samuel Forgy while Mr. Forgy was in the

middle of an acute, drug-induced psychosis. Officer Garretson claimed that he feared for his life

from the danger posed by Mr. Forgy, who was 55, weighed 128 pounds, and was completely

naked while holding only a hammer in his hand.

2. The Boulder police were called to an apartment after a psychotic Mr. Forgy had

seriously assaulted one of his roommates with a knife. Officer Garretson, along with phalanx of

officers in riot gear, assembled on an outdoor stairway landing below Mr. Forgy who was at the

1
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19

top of the stairway landing, approximately fifteen feet away from the officers. It was clear that

he was naked holding only a hammer in his hand. All of the officers were armed, at least one

wore a protective helmet, and several of them had their guns drawn and pointed at Mr. Forgy.

The officer at the front of the four-man formation had a Plexiglas riot shield. The one trained

SWAT officer on-scene fired a non-lethal Taser shot at Mr. Forgy. The other two officers never

fired their weapons. The Taser darts missed Mr. Forgy and almost simultaneously with the Taser

being fired, Officer Garretson shot Mr. Forgy four times in the head and chest killing him

instantly.

3. Officer Garretson was never in danger of serious bodily injury or death, and his

unnecessary and unjustifiable actions resulted in the death of a 22 year-old young man. Officer

Garretson fired on Mr. Forgy, who was naked and holding a hammer, from the protective cover

of a riot shield. The first bullet hit Mr. Forgy in the middle of his forehead.

4. That summer night, family and friends lost a beloved son, brother, and friend.

Boulders deficient policies and training coupled with Officer Garretsons conduct and

unnecessary use of deadly force on Mr. Forgy, needlessly resulted in his death, all in violation of

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

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

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiffs claim for attorneys fees and costs is conferred

by 42 U.S.C. 1988.

2
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19

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

of the events and omissions alleged herein occurred within the state of Colorado. At the time of

the events and omissions giving rise to this litigation, all of the parties resided in Colorado.

III. Parties

7. The decedent, Samuel Forgy, was a citizen of the United States of America and a

resident of the state of Colorado.

8. Plaintiff Glen Forgy, personal representative of the estate of Samuel Forgy, is the

father of Samuel Forgy, and is a resident of the state of Iowa.

9. The City of Boulder Colorado is a municipality and is responsible for supervision,

training, official policies, customs and actual practices of its agents, the City of Boulder Police

Department.

10. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Officer Dillon Garretson was a

citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado, and was acting under the color of state

law in his capacity as a law enforcement officer employed by Boulder.

IV. Factual Allegations

Samuel Forgys Life

11. Samuel Carl England Forgy was born on April 13, 1993 in Moline, Illinois, to

parents Glen Forgy and Michele England. He was known to his friends and family as Sam.

12. Mr. Forgy was Glen and Micheles only biological child. The Forgys adopted Mr.

Forgys younger sister, Alyssa. She is four years younger than Mr. Forgy.

13. Mr. Forgys friends and family knew him for his biting wit and keen sense of

humor.

3
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19

14. From a very early age, Mr. Forgy was a voracious learner. By the age of three, he

was memorizing and reciting books on tape for his parents, his favorite was Toy Story.

15. Mr. Forgy had always been creative. In middle school, he enjoyed imaginative

games such as Dungeons & Dragons. He also loved to play the videogame Guitar Hero, and

eventually starting playing guitar in real life.

16. Unbeknownst to Mr. Forgy and his parents, Mr. Forgy was suffering from a

condition called non-verbal learning disorder. This neurological disorder led to difficulties for

Mr. Forgy.

17. Initially, Mr. Forgy had trouble socially and academically in school, often

struggling to read people well, and grappling with frustration which would sometimes erupt into

anger.

18. He was eventually placed on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which

helped Mr. Forgy to better understand and cope with his feelings of frustration and anger. One of

these coping mechanisms was a designated escape route to the school guidance counselors

office in times of stress.

19. In an IEP meeting when Mr. Forgy started high school, a teacher definitively told

Mr. Forgys parents that he simply couldnt learn math, and would never be able to take

calculus. However, Glen and Michele knew better. They knew that their son was extremely

smart and could succeed if only he was given the right tools.

20. Michele and Glen decided to have Mr. Forgy tested by a psychiatrist, who

diagnosed Mr. Forgys nonverbal learning disorder, but concluded that Mr. Forgy had an

extraordinarily high IQ. This meant that, while Mr. Forgy might struggle to recognize nonverbal

4
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19

cues such as facial expressions or body language, he had superlative reasoning and problem-

solving skills.

21. Pursuant to this diagnosis, Mr. Forgy was prescribed Adderall, and once properly

medicated, he truly blossomed. He discovered what was to become his passion higher

mathematics. He also developed an interest in current events and physics.

22. Mr. Forgy graduated from City High School in Iowa City in 2010, finishing a year

early while taking Advanced Placement (AP) classes and college-level math.

23. During and immediately after high school, Mr. Forgy worked washing dishes, and

volunteered with United Action for Youth (UAY), a nonprofit organization in Iowa City that

offers programs and guidance for young people. He continued to play guitar, often jamming with

other kids at UAY.

24. After graduating from high school, Mr. Forgy moved from Iowa City to Denver,

Colorado with a close friend.

25. He enrolled in the mathematics program at the Community College of Denver, in

preparation to transfer to a four-year undergraduate degree program. There, he met Professor

Zinaida Stilman, a faculty member in the Mathematics department who took particular interest in

Mr. Forgy after he took her calculus class. Mr. Forgy went on to work as Professor Stilmans

teaching assistant, and she encouraged Mr. Forgy to work as a tutor.

26. Mr. Forgy was eventually such a popular tutor that Professor Stilman asked for

special dispensation from the College to allow Mr. Forgy to work extra tutoring shifts.

27. In order to support himself during this time, Mr. Forgy was also working

sweeping a parking garage for four hours every morning before class.

5
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19

28. In April of 2014, Mr. Forgy was admitted to the Department of Applied

Mathematics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, one of the leading applied math programs

in the world. He officially started classes August 25, 2014.

29. In the summer of 2015, Mr. Forgy was subletting a room in a four bedroom

apartment at 1841 19th Street, apartment #8, in Boulder.

Sam with his maternal grandmother

The Events of July 27, Leading up to the Police Encounter

30. On Monday, July 27, 2015, Mr. Forgy spent most of the day in his room while his

roommate, Caleb Bailey, and three friends (Bennett Cosgrove, Razvan Breban, and Max

Sandler) hung out in the common area of the apartment.

31. Later in the day, the four young men noted that Mr. Forgy was acting odd, but

nothing about his actions gave them any cause for alarm. Mr. Bailey and his friends believed that

Mr. Forgy had taken a hallucinogen or acid and that he just needed to wait for the drug to wear

off.

6
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19

32. Toxicology reports later revealed that he had taken Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

(LSD), in addition to smoking marijuana.

33. As the evening wore on, Mr. Forgy started to pace around the apartment,

muttering nonsensically and sweating profusely. He eventually vomited and returned to his

room.

34. Around 10 p.m., Mr. Forgy emerged from his room totally nude, and continued to

say nonsensical and largely incomprehensible things, including something about being the

messiah.

35. Feeling that his roommates were ignoring him, Mr. Forgy picked up a chair and

smashed it against the wall, startling Caleb and his friends, but not hurting anyone. Mr. Forgy

began to throw pieces of the chair at Mr. Bailey and his friends so they wrestled him to the floor

to get him to stop and to try to get him to calm down.

36. Eventually, Mr. Forgy seemed calm, and the other young men let him up off the

floor, but he got up and picked up a knife in the kitchen. Mr. Bailey and his friends again tried to

restrain Mr. Forgy by pinning his hand with the knife above his head. Mr. Forgy flailed around

with the knife in his hand and during the struggle cut Mr. Cosgrove on the forehead and chin.

37. At this point, all four young men exited the apartment. Two people ran across the

landing to an adjacent apartment, and two fled down the exterior stairs into the parking lot.

38. Mr. Forgy followed Mr. Bailey and Mr. Breban across the landing, knocking on

the door of apartment #7 (which was locked) before retreating back into his own apartment.

39. One of the young men then called 911, and alerted the dispatcher that Mr. Forgy

was naked and out of his mind on drugs.

7
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19

The Excessive Force and Recklessness that Killed Mr. Forgy on July 27, 2015
40. Upon arrival at 1841 19th St, four officers assembled in a tactical formation on

the switchback landing between the ground and second floor of the apartment building, as seen

below.

41. The four officers took an offensive Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)

position outside Mr. Forgys apartment, with Officer Matt Smyth in front, carrying a shield,

followed by Officer David Zimmerman carrying a rifle and Officer Darren Fladung carrying a

Taser and finally Defendant Dillon Garretson acting as rear guard.

42. Once in position, they ordered Mr. Forgy to come out with his hands up.

43. Mr. Forgy complied, exiting the apartment, still entirely naked, with a regular-

sized carpenters hammer in his hand. The officers immediately shouted for Mr. Forgy to drop

the weapon, and again, he complied immediately by placing the hammer on the ground and

sitting down on the landing. Despite initially complying with law enforcement directives, Mr.

Forgy picked up the hammer and stood up on the landing.

8
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19

44. When Mr. Forgy stood up with the hammer in his hand, Officer Darren Fladung

(a SWAT team member) fired his non-lethal Taser at Mr. Forgy, striking him in the hip with one

Taser probe and missing Mr. Forgy with the other probe. A Taser only works when both probes

make contact with the body and in relatively close proximity to one another. Therefore, the Taser

had no effect on Mr. Forgy, but simply made the characteristic loud chattering sound.

45. Within less than a second of hearing the Taser sound, witnesses heard nearly

simultaneous gunshots.

46. At approximately 10:39 p.m., Defendant Garretson shot and killed Sam Forgy.

47. Defendant Garretson fired his weapon five times, striking Mr. Forgy with a total

of four bullets. Mr. Forgys naked body fell two flights of stairs, coming to rest nearly on the

ground below him and the BPD officers.

48. Officer Garretson shot Mr. Forgy in the forehead, leaving a bullet to rest in his

brain, twice in the chest, tearing through his lungs and superior vena cava and once in the

shoulder and arm.

49. Officer Zimmerman had a rifle pointed at Mr. Forgy. He did not fire his weapon.

Officer Smyth had a shield in one hand and a handgun in his other hand. He did not fire his

weapon. Officer Fladung was the only SWAT trained officer of the four and he was armed with

a handgun and a Taser. Officer Fladung fired his Taser. Officer Garretson was the only officer

who fired his gun at Mr. Forgy while standing behind the other three officers furthest away

from Mr. Forgy.

50. Despite requiring that every officer take de-escalation training, official Boulder

Police Department policy does not require, or even advise, officers to use any kind of de-

escalation tactics when using force, up to an including deadly force. This deficiency in policy

9
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19

was instrumental in Mr. Forgys death because the officers, including Defendant Garretson,

escalated the situation.

51. Defendant City of Boulder was deliberately indifferent to the need to train and

supervise officers regarding the appropriate treatment of mental health calls, and to discipline

officers who failed to properly address mental health-related concerns.

52. Upon information and belief, based upon Defendant Garretsons entirely

inappropriate use of deadly force, he has either received no de-escalation training or Boulder has

provided inadequate training to de-escalate police encounters with people in crisis or under

intense stress.

53. Mr. Forgy was pronounced dead at 10:43 p.m. by medical personnel on scene. His

death was ruled a homicide.

54. According to the coroners report, Mr. Forgy died as a result of four bullets, the

first of which entered his mid-forehead, with the other three striking him in his chest and arms.

The first bullet penetrated the frontal lobe of his brain, the midbrain, the left cerebellar

hemisphere, left occipital skull, and the subcutaneous tissue of the left occipital scalp. The other

three struck him in the left shoulder, left forearm and chest, and the inferior left chest.

55. The coroner stated there was no evidence of close range or contact gunfire,

demonstrating that Mr. Forgy was still some distance from Defendant Garretson when he shot

Mr. Forgy.

Boulders Custom and Practice of Excessive Force

56. Mr. Forgys death was part of a broader custom and culture of excessive force in

Boulder, and specifically within the Boulder Police Department, and is just one example of the

overwhelmingly common use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

10
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19

57. Defendant City and County of Boulder has created, fostered, tolerated, and

perpetuated an environment and culture of law enforcement brutality and deliberate indifference

to the constitutional and statutory rights of citizens and residents.

58. The culture and environment of brutality, and the lack of training, supervision,

and discipline of law enforcement officers is evinced by, among other things, the number of

excessive force incidents before and after Mr. Forgys death.

59. On November 24, 2013, Micahel Habay was in the midst of a severe mental

health crisis when a neighbor called the Boulder Police Department. Calls for assistance to Mr.

Habays home based on his erratic behavior and outbursts were nothing new for the Boulder

Police Department, but, on November 24, 2013, the Boulder Police Department responded to Mr.

Habays behavior in a way they never had before: with deadly force. Using a battering ram to

burst through the front door into Mr. Habays living room, Boulder Police Officer Vincent

Gallerani shot and killed Mr. Habay as he tried to run away. This shooting was later found to be

justified and no officer was disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.

60. On May 20th, 2014, Coleman Stewart went out drinking with some friends to take

his mind off ongoing issues with his parents and girlfriend. After consuming a significant

amount of alcohol, Mr. Stewart took a taxi home from the bar and tried to exit the taxi without

paying. However, before he could get out of the cab, the taxi driver started driving again, and

indicated that he was going to take Mr. Stewart to the police station. Upon arriving at the police

station, Mr. Stewart, who was still very intoxicated, got out of the taxi and ran back to his

apartment. Several officers followed Mr. Stewart to his apartment and ordered him to come out.

Mr. Stewart responded by grabbing a BB gun, which the officers saw through the venetian blinds

of Mr. Stewarts apartment. Officers then shouted GUN! and Boulder Police Officers

11
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19

Frankenreiter, Starks, and Vaporis fired a total of ten times into Mr. Stewarts apartment from

outside. SWAT team members eventually broke down the door, and contacted Mr. Stewart, who

was so drunk he did not remember anything after leaving the bar, and did not know he had been

shot. Although Mr. Stewart was fortunate enough to survive this encounter, it is yet another

incident of inappropriate use of force by the Boulder Police Department against an individual

who was not in his right mind. This shooting was later found to be justified and no officer was

disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.

61. On October 5, 2016, at around 9:00 a.m., the Boulder Police and CU Police

Dispatch Centers received 911 calls reporting that a white male (later identified as Brandon

Simmons) was on the CU campus and carrying what turned out to be a machete. One of the

callers reported that he had a confrontation with Mr. Simmons in a parking lot on campus where

Mr. Simmons had been writing in red sharpie on cars. Mr. Simmons had ordered the 911 caller

to roll up his window so he could write a commandment on it. Mr. Simmons then went into

the Champions Center on campus, and encountered several other people throughout the building

who called to report his erratic behavior. Boulder Police Officer Jason Connor and CU Police

Officer Clay Austin were ultimately dispatched to Mr. Simmons last reported location, which

was the stairwell on the fourth floor of the building. When Officers Austin and Connor reached

the fifth floor landing, they saw Mr. Simmons on the stairs above the landing. BPD Officer

Connor then realized Mr. Simmons was holding a machete in a horizontal manner with the tip

facing the officers. Officer Connor saw Mr. Simmons descending toward him and Officer

Austin, and when Mr. Simmons was about five steps away above them, he changed his direction

from walking straight down the stairs to walking toward the officers. Officer Connor then shot

and killed Brandon Simmons while Mr. Simmons was suffering from significant mental health

12
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19

and chemical abuse issues. This shooting was later found to be justified and no officer was

disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.

62. On May 22, 2016, Boulder 911 received several calls that a man who was

described as looking not in his right mind had fired one shot into Boulder Creek, and was

continuing to cock and aim a handgun. Boulder Police Officers Ryan Austin and Ross Maynard

responded to the call, and immediately ordered the man, Bryson Fischer, to put down the

weapon. When he did not comply, the officers fired a total of sixty-two shots, hitting Mr. Fischer

eleven times. Mr. Fischer died at the hospital, where his autopsy revealed the presence of

methamphetamine, amphetamine, demoxipam, alprazolam, THC and morphine. His gun was

later discovered to be inoperable, due to the fact that it was not loaded correctly. This shooting

was later found to be justified and no officer was disciplined in conjunction with the use of force.

63. These cases provide representative examples of the rampant use of excessive

force by the Boulder Police Department against citizens in psychological crisis, and the lack of

adequate training or supervision on the part of the City of Boulder to prevent these dangerous

and unlawful patterns of conduct.

V. Statement of Claims for Relief

First Claim for Relief

42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Excessive Force
(Against All Defendants)
64. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.

65. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was acting under the color of state law in

his capacity as a Boulder law enforcement officer.

13
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19

66. At the time when Mr. Forgy was shot and killed by Defendant Garretson, Mr.

Forgy had a clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from unreasonable

seizure through excessive force.

67. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this

clearly established right at the time of Mr. Forgys death.

68. Defendant Garretson engaged in the use of force that was objectively

unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, violating Mr. Forgys

constitutional rights.

69. Defendant Garretsons actions, as described herein, were undertaken

intentionally, maliciously, callously, willfully, wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of Mr.

Forgys federally protected rights.

70. Defendant Garretson unreasonably used excessive force against Mr. Forgy,

resulting in Mr. Forgys death.

71. The acts or omissions by Defendants were the moving force behind and proximate

cause of Mr. Forgys injuries.

72. The acts or omissions of Defendants were engaged in pursuant to the custom,

policy, and practice of the City of Boulder, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and ratifies

the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers in the City.

73. Boulder has a custom, practice and/or policy of failing to adequately train or

supervise its law enforcement officers in crisis intervention when dealing with people suffering

from an obvious mental health crisis.

14
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19

74. The acts or omissions by Defendants caused Mr. Forgy damages in that he

suffered extreme physical and mental pain during the assault that resulted in his death.

Second Claim for Relief

42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Violation
Deprivation of Life Without Due Process
(Against All Defendants)
75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth

fully herein.

76. At all times relevant to this claim, Defendant Garretson was acting under the color

of state law in his capacity as a Boulder law enforcement officer.

77. The decedent, Mr. Forgy, had a clearly established constitutional right under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to not be deprived of his life without

due process of law.

78. Any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this

clearly established right.

79. Defendants acted willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and with reckless disregard

of Mr. Forgys constitutionally protected federal rights.

80. Defendant Garretson engaged in the acts and omissions described herein pursuant

to the customs, policies, and practices of Boulder, which encourages, condones, tolerates, and

ratifies the deprivation of life without due process of law.

81. The acts or omissions of Defendant Boulder and Defendant Garretson, including

the unconstitutional policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices described herein, were the

legal and proximate cause of Mr. Forgys death and Plaintiffs damages.

15
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19

82. As a direct result of Defendant Garretsons unlawful actions as described above,

Plaintiffs suffered actual physical, emotional, and economic injuries in an amount to be proven at

trial.

83. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be damaged by Defendant Garretsons

deprivation of Mr. Forgys life without lawful due process.

Third Claim for Relief

42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs,
Training, Supervision, and Ratification
(Against Defendant City and County of Boulder)
84. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth

fully herein.

85. At all times relevant to this claim, Boulder maintained longstanding policies,

customs, and practices, and failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers in a

manner amounting to deliberate indifference with respect to excessive force by police officers

generally, and including obviously recurring situations faced by police of contact with high-risk

citizens suffering from a mental health crisis.

86. Defendant Boulders longstanding policies, customs, and practices, and failure to

train, supervise, and discipline its officers included failure to train officers on avoiding the

reckless and deliberate creation of the need to use force.

87. Defendant Boulders longstanding policies, customs, and practices, and failure to

train, supervise, and discipline its officers included failure to train officers on avoiding the

deprivation of life without due process of law.

16
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19

88. Defendant Boulders conduct with respect to these policies, customs, and

practices, and failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers was a driving force

behind the constitutional violations described herein.

89. Defendant Boulder failed to discipline, train, and supervise Officer Garretson

concerning the Fourth Amendment and the use of excessive force, including deadly force, in the

avoidance of the reckless and deliberate creation of the need to use force.

90. The constitutional violations against and harming of decedent Sam Forgy were a

foreseeable consequence of Boulders actions and inactions.

91. Defendant City of Boulder was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights

of its citizens, knowing that its officers presented a danger to them, by failing to properly train,

monitor, supervise, and discipline its employees with respect to the use of excessive force,

including in the specific principles described above. Boulder could have and should have

pursued reasonable methods of training, monitoring, supervising, and disciplining its employees.

92. Defendant City of Boulders policies, customs, or practices in failing to properly

train and supervise its employees were the moving force and proximate cause of the violation to

Mr. Forgys constitutional rights

93. The custom, policy, and practice of the City of Boulder of encouraging,

condoning, tolerating, and ratifying the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers in

The City, as described herein, were the moving force behind and proximate cause of the

violation of Mr. Forgys constitutional rights.

94. The acts or omissions of Defendant City of Boulder caused Mr. Forgy damages in

that he suffered extreme physical and mental pain during the assault that resulted in his death.

17
 Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19

95. Defendant Boulders acts or omissions as described herein deprived Plaintiffs of

the rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States

of America, and caused Plaintiffs other damages.

Fourth Claim for Relief

State Law Claim for Wrongful Death under C.R.S. 13-21-202
(Plaintiff Glen Forgy Against All Defendants)

96. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth

fully herein.

97. Plaintiff Glen Forgy, and Michele England, as the parents of Sam Forgy, suffered

and continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages due to Defendants conduct toward

their son, including but not limited to damages for grief, loss of their sons companionship,

impairment in the quality of life, inconvenience, pain and suffering, and extreme emotional

stress.

98. Defendants conduct was attended by circumstances of malice, or willful and

wanton conduct, which Defendants must have realized was dangerous, or that was done

heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to the consequence to Mr. Forgy and his parents.

99. Defendants consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that they

knew or should have known would cause the death of another

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

favor and against each of the Defendants, and award Plaintiffs all relief allowed by law,

including but not limited to the following:

a) All appropriate relief at law and equity;

b) Declaratory relief and other appropriate equitable relief;

c) Economic losses on all claims as allowed by law;

18
Case 1:17-cv-01615 Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19

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

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.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of July, 2017.
/s/ David A. Lane
David A. Lane
Eleanor K. Wedum
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
1543 Champa St. Ste. 400
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 571-1000
dlane@kln-law.com
ewedum@kln-law.com
/s/ Kathryn Stimson
Kathryn Stimson
STIMSON GLOVER STANCIL LEEDY LLC
1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 420
Denver, CO 80202
(720) 664-8066
kate@SGSLATTORNEYS.COM
Counsel for Plaintiff

19