McCully v. El Paso County Colorado et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against El Paso County Colorado, Kimberly Farrell, Deanna Flores, Sean Grady, Lari Hanenberg, Melanie Hoffman, Michael Krablean, Michelle Mackey, Spencer Ottley, Rincon, Rogers (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082-4930548)Attorney David Arthur Lane added to party Philippa McCully(pty:pla), filed by Philippa McCully. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lane, David)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.:
PHILIPPA GRACE MCCULLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY;
KIMBERLY FARRELL;
SEAN GRADY;
LARI HANENBERG;
DEANNA FLORES;
SPENCER OTTLEY;
[First Name Unknown] RINCON, a law enforcement officer of the El Paso County Sheriff’s
Office;
[First Name Unknown] ROGERS, a law enforcement officer of the El Paso County Sheriff’s
Office
MICHAEL KRABLEAN;
MICHELLE MACKEY;
MELANIE HOFFMAN;
JOHN DOES 1-10, in their individual and official capacities; and
JANE DOES 1-10, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Philippa Grace McCully, by and through counsel, David Lane, Darold Killmer
and Eudoxie (Dunia) Dickey of KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, respectfully alleges for her
Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:
I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises out of the brutal treatment sustained by and subsequent failure to
provide medical care to Plaintiff Philippa Grace McCully at the hands of Defendants Deputy
1

Sean Grady, Deputy Kimberly Farrell, Lieutenant Lari Hanenberg, Deputy or Lieutenant Deanna
Flores, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Spencer Ottley, Deputy or Lieutenant or LPN Michelle
Mackay, Deputy or Lieutenant or LPN Melanie Hoffman, Deputy or Lieutenant [First Name
Unknown] Rincon, Deputy or Lieutenant Michael Krablean, Deputy [First Name Unknown]
Rogers, John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, who were at all relevant times acting under color of
state law in their respective capacities as correctional officers employed at the El Paso County
Criminal Justice Center, located at 2739 E. Las Vegas St., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906
(the “Jail”).
2. On or about April 21, 2014, Ms. McCully was arrested and taken to the Jail. At
approximately 11:17 P.M., Deputy Sean Grady, Deputy Kimberly Farrell and Lt. Lari Hanenberg
escorted a compliant Ms. McCully into a holding cell. At this point, Defendants Grady, Farrell
and Lt. Hanenberg violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to be free of excessive force
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when, with the assistance of Lt.
Hanenberg, Defendant Farrell grabbed Plaintiff’s feet and brutally pulled Plaintiff’s legs out
from underneath and behind her, causing Plaintiff to slam forcibly onto the cell floor, audibly
hitting her head and knees against the hard concrete surface. Working in concert, at the same
time that Deputy Farrell pulled Plaintiff’s legs out from behind her, Deputy Grady excessively
forcefully shoved Plaintiff down hard by her left shoulder using his right arm, simultaneously
restraining her arms from behind. Consequently, Plaintiff was unable to break her fall with her
arms or hands, and she suffered severe injuries, including but not limited to a fractured left knee,
left knee hyperextension with bone contusion, left anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) avulsion
tear, torn left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), left posterior joint capsular tear, extensive, deep
bruising on the fronts and backs of her legs and blunt trauma to her face, head and upper body.
2

As Plaintiff lay face-down on the unyielding concrete, having been immediately handcuffed
behind her back after her violent takedown and completely incapacitated, Deputy Farrell and Lt.
Lari Hanenberg placed their respective knees and full body weight onto the back of each of
Plaintiff’s legs as Deputy Grady dug his left knee into Plaintiff’s back, soon joined by John Doe
1,1 who excessively forcefully dug his right knee into Plaintiff’s back.
3. The excessive force used against Ms. McCully is a reflection of a long-time custom,
practice and policy of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office (“EPSO”), which at the time lacked a
constitutionally adequate policy respecting excessive force and for years had failed to adequately
train and discipline its employees with respect to the use of excessive force. The violent and
brutal treatment perpetrated upon Philippa McCully represents the standard operating procedure
within the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, which has in fact permitted a culture of excessive
force to fester in its Jail, and condoned and ratified the actions of staff who engaged in excessive
force against inmates.
4. Following this dramatic take-down, Ms. McCully immediately screamed out in pain that
her left leg was broken and she was in acute pain from her multiple injuries. Although she
voiced her concern that her leg was broken over and over again, had obvious and visible
difficulty standing up and walking and repeatedly requested medical attention the night of April
21st-22nd, 2014, and throughout the rest of her 5-day detainment at the Jail, her clearly
established Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to receive medical treatment was callously
ignored and violated by Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
condition and their failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical evaluation or treatment,

1

The identity of several of the individuals who interacted with Plaintiff McCully has not yet been ascertained,
despite several requests by undersigned counsel to the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office (“EPSO”). On April 8, 2016,
the EPSO’s Public Information Officer, Jacqueline Kirby, wrote in response to a specific request to identify by
saying “EPSO declines to answer the question posed about identifying those in the video.”

3

despite Defendants’ awareness of Plaintiff’s serious and obvious injuries. As a result, Plaintiff
spent her five days in custody at the Jail in excruciating pain and nearly unable to walk.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s injuries worsened significantly for lack of early medical evaluation,
attention and intervention.
5. The El Paso County Sheriff’s Office has a custom, policy and practice of failing to
evaluate and treat the serious medical conditions of inmates at the Jail, and condones and fails to
discipline its correctional officers for failing to appropriately provide medical attention.
6. As a result of the Individual Defendants’ actions and inactions, and El Paso County’s
custom, policy and practice with respect to excessive force and provision of medical care,
Plaintiff suffered severe physical and emotional damages and continues to be traumatized by her
brutal and painful ordeal.
II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
Colorado, and is brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
9. Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs is conferred by 42
U.S.C. § 1988.
10. Venue is proper in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All 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.

4

III.

PARTIES

Plaintiff
11. Plaintiff, Philippa Grace McCully, is a citizen of the United States and was at all times
relevant hereto a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado.
Defendants
12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Deputy Kimberly Farrell 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County
Sheriff’s Office.
13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Deputy Sean Grady 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 correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s
Office.
14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant Lari Hanenberg 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County
Sheriff’s Office.
15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Deputy or Lieutenant Deanna Flores
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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso
County Sheriff’s Office.
16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
Spencer Ottley was a citizen of the United States, resident of and domiciled in the State of
5

Colorado and was acting under color of state law in his capacity as a nurse employed by the El
Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy or Licensed
Practical Nurse (LPN) Michelle Mackey 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 her capacity as a
correctional officer or nurse employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
18. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy [First Name
Unknown] Rincon, a female, 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 her capacity as a correctional officer
employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Deputy [First Name Unknown] Rogers
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 or her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El
Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
20. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy or LPN Michael
Krablean 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 correctional officer employed by the
El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy or LPN Michelle
Mackey 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 correctional officer employed by the El
Paso County Sheriff’s Office.

6

22. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy or LPN Melanie
Hoffman 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 correctional officer employed by the
El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
23. Plaintiff has made diligent efforts to identify the John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10
Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff has made numerous requests to the El Paso County Sheriff’s
Office and the El Paso County Attorney’s Office asking for the identities of the officers visible in
the Jail video footage taken of Philippa McCully’s holding cell, cell 3, from approximately 11:17
P.M. on April 21, 2014 through approximately 3:44 A.M. on April 22, 2014 (the “Jail
Surveillance Video”).2 Despite Plaintiff’s repeated inquiries, the County Attorney’s Office
failed to respond altogether and the Sheriff’s Office responded but declined to identify the
officers in the video. See footnote one, supra. Therefore, in order to provide the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, Plaintiff identifies some of the John Does 1-10 and Jane
Does 1-10 by reference to still video screenshots of the Jail Surveillance Video included below.
Other John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 are not present in the video, but supervised and
therefore were legally responsible for the actions and inactions of the Individual Defendants
visible in the video. The identity of these John and Jane Doe Defendants is within the possession
and knowledge of Defendant EPSO.
24. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant John Doe 1 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 correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.

2

References to the times and date of the events described throughout this Complaint are taken from the Jail
Surveillance Video time and date stamps.

7

Defendant John Doe 1 is the male officer visible in the middle of the Jail Surveillance Video
screenshot below, taken at approximately 11:17:32 P.M. on April 21, 2014:

25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant John Doe 2 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 correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant John Doe 2 is the male officer visible holding a camera on the far right in the
screenshot below, taken at approximately 11:19:10 P.M. on April 21, 2014:

8

26. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 1 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 1 is the female officer visible behind the jail cell window in the Jail
Surveillance Video screenshot below, taken at approximately 1:19:17 A.M. on April 22, 2014:

9

27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 2 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 2 is the female officer visible behind the jail cell window, taken at
approximately 1:31:01 A.M. on April 22, 2014. This may be the same individual as Jane Doe 1,
described in ¶ 23.

10

28. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 3 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 3 is the female officer visible standing on the left hand side in the back row
in the Jail Surveillance Video screenshot below, taken at approximately 3:23:16 A.M. on April
22, 2014:

11

29. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 4 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 4 is the female officer visible standing on the right hand side in the back
row in the Jail Surveillance Video screenshot below, taken at approximately 3:23:16 A.M. on
April 22, 2014:

12

30. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 5 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 5 is the female officer visible standing on the right hand side in the front
row in the Jail Surveillance Video screenshot below taken at approximately 3:23:16 A.M. on
April 22, 2014. This Jane Doe 5 may be Defendant Rincon:

13

31. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant John Doe 2 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 correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant John Doe 2 is the male officer visible on the left-hand side of the shot, grabbing
Plaintiff’s right arm in the Jail Surveillance Video screenshot below, taken at approximately
3:35:43 A.M. on April 22, 2014. This John Doe 2 may be Defendant Deputy Grady:

14

32. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 6 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 6 is the female officer visible standing on the right hand side, grabbing
Defendant’s left arm in the Jail Surveillance Video screenshot below, taken at approximately
3:35:43 A.M. on April 22, 2014:

15

33. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Jane Doe 7 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 her capacity as a correctional officer employed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendant Jane Doe 7 is the female officer visible on the right in the Jail Surveillance Video
screenshot below, taken at approximately 3:35:45 A.M. on April 22, 2014:

16

34. The remaining Defendants John Does 4-10 and Jane Does 8-10 were citizens of the
United States, resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado and were acting under color of
state law in their respective capacities as correctional officers employed by the El Paso County
Sheriff’s Office. Although Defendants John Does 4-10 and Jane Does 8-10 are not present in the
Jail Surveillance Video, they were employed by EPSO and were responsible for the safety and
welfare of detainees at the Jail, and some of them supervised the Defendants present in the Jail
Surveillance Video, and therefore were legally responsible for the actions and inactions of the
named Defendants and John Does 1-3 and Jane Does 1-7 Defendants identified by reference to
their presence in the Jail Surveillance Video.
35. Defendants Farrell, Grady, Hanenberg, Flores, Ottley, Mackey, Rincon, Krablean,
Rogers, John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 are referred to collectively as the “Individual
Defendants.”
17

36. Defendant El Paso County is a governmental entity chartered under the laws of the State
of Colorado. Among other things, El Paso County operates the El Paso County Criminal Justice
Center (“the Jail”), located at 2739 E. Las Vegas St., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906.
IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. PHILIPPA MCCULLY’S LIFE
37. Ms. McCully was born on January 5, 1993.

38.
The above image is a photograph of Ms. McCully with her cousin, Leah, 2, pictured on
Easter of 2016.

18

39. Ms. McCully is a petite young woman, approximately 5 feet, 0 inches tall and weighing
just 100 pounds.
40. Ms. McCully was 21 years old at the time of this incident.
41. Ms. McCully, known as Pippa, has a very close and loving relationship with her identical
twin sister Caroline McCully, known as Zara, both of whom were in their junior year at Colorado
College in Colorado Springs, Colorado at the time of Ms. McCully’s arrest.

42.
(Philippa McCully, known as “Pippa”, right, with her twin sister Caroline, known as “Zara,”
left, pictured in December 2013.)
43. During her sophomore year, Ms. McCully was diagnosed with cancer and Ollier Disease,
a rare skeletal disorder which causes tumors, one of which had metastasized to chondrosarcoma
and was discovered on Ms. McCully’s left ischium, or butt bone.

19

44. Following this devastating diagnosis, on March 1, 2013, Ms. McCully underwent lifesaving surgery to remove the tumor and three quarters of her left ischium, or butt bone, making
sitting difficult and uncomfortable and requiring Ms. McCully to sit down carefully and place
more weight on her right side.
45. Ms. McCully continued with her regular studies and activities as a college student, but
she was anxious about her diagnosis and prognosis and became depressed. During her
sophomore and junior years at Colorado College, Ms. McCully was treated by clinical staff at the
Colorado College Student Health Center, who prescribed various psychiatric medications in an
effort to alleviate her depression and anxiety.
46. By the spring of 2014, the combination of medications began causing Ms. McCully to act
erratically, and it was in this context that she was arrested for the very first time in her life on the
night of April 21, 2014.
47. On the evening of April 21, 2014, Ms. McCully was arrested for menacing, criminal
attempt and reckless driving after she drove a car and nearly struck other persons with the
vehicle.
48. That evening, several students alerted Roy Garcia, security officer at Colorado College to
McCully’s reckless driving on campus, and Mr. Garcia contacted Officer Newton of the EPSO.
Officers Powers and Caro of the EPSO were also dispatched to the scene. After Officer Newton
conducted a Mirandized interview with Ms. McCully inside of her apartment, he arrested her
and transported her to the Jail.
B. PHILIPPA MCCULLY’S DETAINMENT AT THE EL PASO COUNTY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER
49. Following her arrest on April 21, 2014, Ms. McCully was brought to the Jail, where she
was booked and provided with a jail uniform.
20

50. At approximately 11:17 P.M. on April 21, 2014, Defendant Deputy Grady marched the
orderly and compliant Plaintiff into a holding cell, gripping under her arms from behind in a
“Double Under Hook” hold. Ms. McCully was cooperative and non-resistant.
51. Defendant Deputy Farrell and Lieutenant Lari Hanenberg quickly followed and the three
officers surrounded the unresisting Plaintiff, who was calmly standing facing the cell wall.
52. Suddenly, without any provocation or warning and without Ms. McCully knowing it was
going to happen, and with help from Lieutenant Hanenberg, Deputy Farrell forcefully pulled her
legs out from under her from behind, and with his right arm Deputy Grady excessively forcefully
shoved Plaintiff down hard by her left shoulder onto her front side and face, simultaneously
restraining her arms from behind.
53. Consequently, Plaintiff was unable to break her fall with her hands or arms, breaking it
instead with her knees. She suffered severe injuries, as detailed below.
54. As Plaintiff lay face-down on the unyielding concrete, now handcuffed behind her back
and completely incapacitated, Deputy Farrell and Lt. Lari Hanenberg placed their respective
knees and full body weight onto the back of Plaintiff’s legs, as Deputy Grady dug his left knee
into Plaintiff’s back, soon joined by John Doe 1, who dug his right knee into Plaintiff’s back
with excessive force.

21

55. The image below is a photograph taken by John Doe 2 shortly after the violent takedown
of Ms. McCully.

The picture depicts an image of Plaintiff’s face, her head having just hit the unforgiving
concrete cell floor with a loud thud, while she is being handcuffed and unnecessarily forcefully
restrained by the four large Defendants amassed on top of her 100 pound frame.
56. As a result of this violent takedown, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries, including but not
limited to a fractured left knee, left knee hyperextension with bone contusion, left anterior
cruciate ligament (ACL) avulsion tear, torn left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), left posterior
joint capsular tear, extensive, deep bruising on the fronts and backs of her legs and blunt trauma
to her face, head and upper body.

22

57. Immediately realizing her left leg was broken following her rough and unjustified
takedown, Plaintiff yelled without hesitation “You broke my leg! You broke my leg!” to the
four Defendant officers amassed on top of her.
58. When Deputy Farrell asked Plaintiff to which leg she was referring, Plaintiff indicated
her left leg was hurt.
59. From that moment on and continuing through the remainder of her 5-day stay in the Jail,
Plaintiff never ceased verbally alerting any and all Defendant officers and medical staff to her
pain and the severity of her her broken left knee and requested medical attention over and over
again. During this entire time, Ms. McCully never once met with a medical professional nor
received any kind of medical examination, evaluation or treatment. She did not receive as much
as an aspirin.
60. In response to Plaintiff’s urgent plea, Deputy Ferrell called in Defendant LPN Ottley to
evaluate Plaintiff’s injuries.
61. Without even turning Plaintiff onto her back and to conduct a proper examination of her
legs and knees, at approximately 11:18 P.M. LPN Ottley proceeded to indifferently conduct a
wholly cursory and inadequate check of her legs and feet, hastily clearing her of any injuries
within less than one second.
62. Between approximately 11:19 P.M. and 11:20 P.M., LPN Ottley returned to conduct
another equally inadequate and perfunctory check of Plaintiff’s legs and feet, again quickly
clearing her of any injuries, despite the obvious presence of injuries and pain.
63. Because Plaintiff was lying on her front at the time, LPN Ottley did not observe her legs
or feet during either search. He did not even attempt to do so.

23

64. Instead of heeding Plaintiff’s exigent insistence that her leg was broken and providing her
with the prompt medical attention her injuries warranted, at approximately 11:20 P.M.,
Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg, Ottley, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 left Plaintiff alone
lying face down on the hard cell floor, still handcuffed from behind.
65. From approximately 11:20 P.M. on April 21, 2014 until approximately 12:32 A.M. on
April 22, 2014, Plaintiff was left alone in extreme pain, visibly in distress and attempting to
crawl around the holding cell.
66. Plaintiff’s struggles to move about her cell and inability to stand up or bend her leg were
visible to Defendant officers in real-time via the live video feed of the Jail security camera and
upon visual inspection of her cell if anyone bothered to look into the cell window.
67. In her incident report, Defendant Farrell noted she observed Plaintiff’s near inability to
stand up or bend her left leg, and heard her cries of “Help me!”
68. But instead of assisting Plaintiff by calling a doctor or other medical professional,
Defendant Farrell deliberately and indifferently dismissed Plaintiff’s distress by stating that she
had already been checked and cleared of injury by Defendant LPN Ottley.
69. With no option but to lie or sit on the hard, concrete floor, Plaintiff experienced
additional pain because of her prior cancer surgery in which three quarters of her left ischium, or
butt bone, had been removed, making sitting highly uncomfortable, let alone on rocklike
concrete.
70. When Plaintiff removed her pants in order to inspect her injuries at approximately 12:09
A.M. on April 22, 2014, her fractured left knee appeared visibly swollen.

24

71. At approximately 12:29 A.M., Plaintiff again struggled to stand up, but ultimately failed
because of her inability to bend or place any weight onto her left leg. Still handcuffed behind her
back, Plaintiff was unable to use her hands to brace herself against the cell wall.
72. Defendants Farrell, Hanenberg and Rincon entered her cell at approximately 12:32 A.M.,
over 70 minutes after abandoning Plaintiff, and found her handcuffed and writhing in pain from a
knee whose fracture the officers themselves had caused.
73. Plaintiff again insisted to Defendants Farrell, Hanenberg and Rincon that her leg was
broken.
74. Yet again LPN Ottley was called in to perform another totally deficient medical
examination of Plaintiff’s knees, legs and feet, following which he deliberately and indifferently
pronounced that while she may have overextended her knee, Plaintiff’s leg was definitively not
broken, according to his medical judgment.
75. Consistent with the extent and seriousness of her pain and injuries, Plaintiff asked
whether she would be taken to a hospital
76. LPN Ottley denied Plaintiff’s request, with deliberate indifference to her serious and
obvious medical condition, and refused to provide any additional medical evaluation, treatment,
call a medical professional or to transport Plaintiff to a hospital or other medical facility as she
requested.
77. LPN Ottley told Plaintiff he would be able to get her some pain medication later.
78. This promised medication never arrived, and Plaintiff did not receive any pain
medication during her entire stay in custody.
79. At this point, Defendants Farrell, Hanenberg and Rincon and LPN Ottley, as well as their
respective supervisors, were on notice and were or should have been clearly aware of the extent
25

of Plaintiff’s serious and obvious severe pain and injuries, evidenced by her swollen knees, her
inability to bend her left leg, her struggles to stand up or walk, her cries for medical assistance
and the deep purple bruising already covering the entirety of her feet, lower legs and knees.
80. Nevertheless, at approximately 12:41 A.M., Defendants Farrell, Hanenberg and Rincon
and LPN Ottley left Plaintiff in her cell once again, alone and in obvious pain and distress.
81. Plaintiff repeatedly requested medical attention by insistently pressing the call button in
her cell and banging on the cell window with her hands at approximately 1:18 A.M., 1:19 A.M.,
2:01 A.M., and 2:27 A.M. without any response.
82. During this period of time, various officers can be observed walking outside her cell
window, callously ignoring Plaintiff’s pleas for assistance with deliberate indifference.
83. At approximately 1:19 A.M., Plaintiff pushed herself up with great effort, bracing with
her right arm against the wall, and hobbled over to the window to ask for help.
84. At approximately 1:20 A.M., Defendant Farrell inaccurately noted in a report, “I
observed inmate McCully standing on both legs, her right hand on her hip, without any issues.”
85. At approximately 1:30 A.M., Plaintiff once again explained that she has a broken leg to
Defendant Deputy Rogers through the cell window, but neither Deputy Rogers, Deputy Farrell,
their supervisors nor any other Defendants took any actions to assist Plaintiff or provide her with
appropriate medical care.
86. Finally, at approximately 3:19 A.M., Defendant Hanenberg and Defendants Jane Does 35 entered Plaintiff’s cell and proceeded to take multiple digital photographs of each of Plaintiff’s
legs and arms, once again being placed on notice of Plaintiff’s extensive, serious and obvious
injuries. Large purple bruising on Plaintiff’s legs and knees is clearly visible in both the Jail

26

Surveillance Video as well as in the digital photographs taken between approximately 3:20 A.M.
and 3:21 A.M.
87. The image below is a photograph taken by Jane Doe 5, who may be Defendant Rincon,
between approximately 3:20 A.M. and 3:21 A.M. on April 22, 2014. The picture depicts
Plaintiff McCully’s broken left knee and extensive, deep purple bruising on the fronts of both
legs which is consistent with where her legs slammed into the concrete cell floor at
approximately 11:17pm on April 21, 2014. When compared with her right knee, the dramatic
swelling in her left knee is readily apparent.

88. The image below is a photograph taken by Jane Doe 5, who may be Defendant Rincon,
between approximately 3:20 A.M. and 3:21 A.M. on April 22, 2014. The picture depicts
Plaintiff McCully’s broken swollen left knee and left leg, covered with extensive, deep purple
27

bruising which is consistent with where the front of both of her legs slammed into the concrete
cell floor at approximately 11:17pm on April 21, 2014. The dramatic swelling in her left knee is
readily apparent.

89. The image below is a photograph taken by Jane Doe 5, who may be Defendant Rincon,
between approximately 3:20 A.M. and 3:21 A.M. on April 22, 2014. The picture depicts Plaintiff
McCully’s right knee and leg marked by extensive, deep purple bruising which is consistent with
where the fronts of both of her legs slammed into the concrete cell floor at approximately
11:17pm on April 21, 2014.

28

90. Plaintiff bruises extremely easily and quickly, so although she may have arrived at the
Jail with a few discrete, minor pre-existing bruises on her arms, the extensive deep purple
bruising captured in the digital photographs taken at this time are the result of and consistent
with the excessive force perpetrated upon Plaintiff by Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg and
John Doe 1 a full four (4) hours earlier, between approximately 11:17 P.M. and 11:20 P.M. the
night of April 21, 2014.
91. At approximately 3:22 A.M., Defendant Hanenberg instructed Plaintiff to get up, and
Plaintiff struggled to stand up with utmost difficulty, forced to brace herself with her left arm
against the cell wall and unable to place any weight at all on her broken left leg.
92. At approximately 3:22 A.M., Defendants Hanenberg and Defendants Jane Does 3-5
observed Plaintiff’s supreme difficulty standing up and walking.
29

93. Between approximately 3:23 A.M. and 3:24 A.M., as Defendant Hanenberg was speaking
with Plaintiff, out of necessity Plaintiff braced herself with her right arm against the cell wall in
order to remain standing. Otherwise, she would have collapsed.
94. As Plaintiff limped over to the door of her cell at approximately 3:24 A.M., she was
clearly unable to walk without the support of her right hand against the cell wall.
95. At approximately 3:24 A.M., unable to walk any further without support, Plaintiff
collapsed, falling forward onto the ground, at which point she lay back and extended her broken
left leg, unable to bend it.
96. At this point, Plaintiff was completely unable to stand without assistance due to her
worsening pain and injury.
97. In order to stand at all, Plaintiff required the assistance of Defendant Jane Doe 3, who
helped push Plaintiff up and supported her as she walked back into the cell, then helped her sit
down on the floor.
98. At approximately 3:25 A.M., undoubtedly recognizing Plaintiff’s complete inability to
stand up on her own, Defendant Hanenberg extended her arm to pull Plaintiff up so that she
would be able to leave the cell.
99. Despite all the mounting evidence suggesting that Plaintiff’s left knee was broken and
she was in excruciating pain and real physical and mental distress, at approximately 3:35 A.M.,
Defendant John Doe 2 excessively roughly pulled Plaintiff back into the cell, grabbing her right
arm from behind, as Defendant Jane Doe 6 pulled Plaintiff from behind by her left arm.
100.

Plaintiff can be seen screaming in pain. Obviously, those Defendants who were

with her observed these clear indications of pain, suffering and severe injury.

30

101.

At approximately 3:36 A.M., Defendant John Doe 2 roughly and callously pushed

down on Plaintiff’s left shoulder as she sat down on the concrete floor, which was extremely
painful for her in light of her prior surgery removing three quarters of her ischium, or butt bone.
102.

Defendants again left Plaintiff alone in her cell, without requesting any medical

attention for her or even taking the minimal step of asking LPN Ottley to again examine her, in
light of her progressively worsening serious medical condition.
103.

Between approximately 3:36 A.M. and the officers’ return at 3:34 A.M., Plaintiff

intermittently holds her left knee with her right arm, in obvious pain.
104.

At this time, Plaintiff’s right leg pant appears in the Jail Surveillance Video to be

covered in blood.
105.

Following Plaintiff’s release from her holding cell at approximately 3:44 A.M.,

Defendant LPN Ottley examined Plaintiff and, finally recognizing the gravity of her injuries, at
approximately 3:54 A.M. issued a “Lower Bunk” alert, indicating that during the entirety of her
remaining stay in Jail and due to her injuries, Plaintiff would be assigned a bottom bunk.
106.

An itinerary of “Scheduled Events for Inmate” indicates that as of April 22, 2014,

Plaintiff “NEEDS LOWER BUNK ONLY.” (emphasis added)
107.

Plaintiff was indeed assigned a lower bunk during the entirety of her remaining

custody at the Jail.
108.

At this point, Defendant LPN Ottley knew or should have known that Plaintiff

was incapable of climbing up a ladder to a top bunk, and yet inexplicably he took no action to
contact other medical personnel or transport Plaintiff to an Emergency Room or other medical
facility.

31

109.

At approximately 7:50 P.M. on April 22, 2014, Defendant Deputy or Lieutenant

Michael Krablean administered a “Point Based Classification Report” to Plaintiff, in which he
noted that in response to question 26, “Are you physically handicapped/ restricted mobility?”
Plaintiff indicated “Yes” and Defendant Krablean noted in the report “LEG PROBLEMS.
MEDICAL KNOWS. INMATE WAS GIVEN A MEDICAL KITE TO RE-ALERT THEM.”
(emphasis added).
110.

Plaintiff then used this medical kite on April 22, 2014, to re-alert medical staff of

her urgent need for assistance.
111.

Despite medical staff’s awareness and recognition of Plaintiff’s “leg problems,”

no response to Plaintiff’s urgent medical kite came on April 22, 2014 or April 23, 2014.
112.

It was not until approximately 7 A.M. on April 24, 2014—approximately eighty

(80) hours from the time she sustained her injuries at the hands of four of the Defendants—that
someone was sent to escort Plaintiff to meet with a medical professional.
113.

Plaintiff spent these eighty (80) hours in excruciating and unnecessary pain.

114.

The previous day, Plaintiff’s attorney informed Plaintiff that she would

imminently be released by 12 P.M. on April 24, 2014. Therefore, Plaintiff declined medical
assistance, but only because she was planning to be admitted to a hospital immediately upon
what she believed to be her imminent release.
115.

When she realized she would not in fact be released on April 24, 2014 as her

attorney had indicated, Plaintiff again sent a medical kite that same day, but no one ever came to
check on Plaintiff’s medical condition prior to her release from the Jail on April 25, 2014 at
approximately 6:18 P.M., over 24 hours later.

32

116.

After meeting with Plaintiff on the evening of April 24, 2014, her attorney told

Jail staff that medical staff needed to evaluate and treat Plaintiff’s leg immediately, but once
again, no one took any action to attend to Plaintiff’s deteriorating medical condition and
continued severe pain and suffering.
117.

Plaintiff never met with a medical professional – with the exception of Defendant

LPN Ottley – during her entire time in custody. At all times Defendant LPN Ottley
demonstrated deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s known and serious medical needs.
118.

At approximately 7:50 P.M. on April 22, 2014, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy

or LPN Michelle Mackey noted on Plaintiff’s Inmate Classification Report that her classification
was “Minimum. Placed on Suicide Preventions.” Later, at 4:41 P.M. on April 24, 2014,
Defendant Mackey placed Plaintiff on a “MH Alert” because of her deteriorating mental state,
caused in part by her extreme pain, injuries and physical distress. Having had an opportunity to
observe or examine Plaintiff carefully enough to make a note regarding her proper inmate
classification and declare a mental health alert, Defendant Mackey knew or should have known
of Plaintiff’s mental and physical distress – distress so severe as to potentially rise to the level of
requiring suicide prevention. Yet, Defendant Mackey did nothing to address Plaintiff’s obvious
and severe physical pain and injuries.
119.

At the same time, Defendant Lieutenant or Deputy or LPN Melanie Hoffman

noted on Plaintiff’s Inmate Classification Report that her classification was “Minimum. RS
REMOVED START YS.” Having had a chance to observe or examine Plaintiff carefully
enough to make a note regarding her proper inmate classification, Defendant Hoffman knew or
should have known of Plaintiff’s severe and obvious mental and physical distress. Yet, like

33

Defendant Mackey, Defendant Hoffman took no actions to address Plaintiff’s obvious and severe
pain and injuries.
120.

Throughout Plaintiff’s 5-day stay at the Jail, the Individual Defendants’

deplorable lack of reaction were constitutionally insufficient and simply not commensurate with
the gravity of Plaintiff’s obvious and serious injuries.
121.

The Individual Defendants, including El Paso County Sheriff’s Office medical

staff, fully recognized the gravity of Plaintiff’s medical condition, but with deliberate
indifference they took no adequate actions to alleviate her serious and obvious pain and injuries.
122.

During the entirety of her detainment at the Jail, Plaintiff did not receive as much

as an aspirin.
123.

As a result of this gross violation of her clearly established Constitutional right to

receive medical treatment, Plaintiff suffered extreme pain and a preventable worsening of her
injuries during her five (5) day ordeal at the Jail.

34

124.
The image above is a photograph taken by Ms. McCully shortly after her release from Jail on
April 25, 2014 which depicts whole-scale, deep purple bruising extending across the back of Ms.
McCully’s left foot, leg and thigh. According to Dr. Gautam Yagnik, MD, an orthopedic
surgeon in Miami, Florida and Ms. McCully’s treating physician in connection with her broken
knee and other injuries described herein, this bruising resulted from a posterior joint capsule
disruption with marked posterior knee edema and hemorrhage that occurred during her violent
35

takedown by Defendants Grady, Farrell and Hanenberg at approximately 11:17 P.M. on April
21, 2014.
125.

To treat her fractured left knee, left knee hyperextension with bone contusion, left

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) avulsion tear, torn left posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), and
left posterior joint capsular tear, among other injuries, after her release from the Jail, Ms.
McCully was required to wear a full leg cast, extending from her thigh to her ankle, for 7 days.
She then had to wear a custom knee brace for a month. Once the brace was removed, Ms.
McCully needed to undergo physical therapy twice per week for 4 months.
126.

As much as 7 months later, Ms. McCully was still experiencing pain and a

crackling or popping sensation in her left knee.
127.

Although her torn ACL eventually healed, Ms. McCully sustained permanent

injuries to her PCL, which doctors have advised will always remain loose.
128.

Her injuries were so severe that Dr. Yagnik, Ms. McCully’s physician, told her he

had seen the same injuries just once before in his entire career – on a Miami Dolphins
linebacker.
129.

Too traumatized by this experience to remain in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Ms.

McCully left Colorado for good shortly following her arrest and detainment at the Jail.
C. EL PASO COUNTY’S CUSTOM, PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF EXCESSIVE
FORCE
130.

El Paso County and the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office have created, fostered,

maintained and tolerated an environment and culture of law enforcement brutality and deliberate
indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens and residents.
131.

El Paso County law enforcement officers have repeatedly and unlawfully used

excessive force against citizens.
36

132.

El Paso County law enforcement officers have engaged in a persistent practice of

law enforcement misconduct, and the officials responsible for assuring that such misconduct
does not occur have consistently failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline individual
officers who have engaged in such misconduct.
133.

An Organizational Assessment of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office prepared by

KRW Associates, LLC on June 17, 20153 (the “Organizational Assessment”) found that between
2010 and 2014, incidents of use of force against inmates by El Paso County Sheriff’s Office
correctional officers saw a dramatic rise:
YEAR
2014

458

2013

322

2012

272

2011

261

2010
134.

# USE OF FORCE REPORTS

130

The Use of Force Policy of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office in effect in 2014

was inadequate and constitutionally deficient. The Organizational Assessment notes that this
Use of Force Policy “is not clearly written and does not conform to best practices” and strongly
advised making 18 key changes to the policy, which were lacking in the policy in effect in 2014.
Such changes include but are not limited to the following: “1. A statement recognizing the
sanctity of life and the significance of using deadly force;” “2. Statement of policy
acknowledging that only force which is ‘objectively reasonable’ shall be used;” “4. Use of

3

Organizational Assessment of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, by KRW Associates, June 17, 2015 (see:
http://posting.csindy.com/media/pdf/krw_report.pdf) (“Organizational Assessment”), at p.17.

37

advisements, warnings and verbal persuasion, when possible, before resorting to force;” “5. Use
of de-escalation techniques to attempt to lessen the likelihood of the need to use force or to
reduce the level of force;” “6. Use of tactical options to attempt to reduce the need for force or
the level of force…;” “ 7. Duty to deescalate immediately as resistance decreases and the threat
subsides;” “10. Duty to immediately notify a supervisor after witnessing or becoming aware of
the use of unnecessary or excessive force by another deputy;” (emphasis in original) “11. Duty
to intercede, when possible, to stop the use of unnecessary and excessive force by another
deputy;” “13. Factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of force options;” “15. Duty
of supervisors to investigate and evaluate use of force by subordinates;” “16. Duty to provide
medical assistance to persons against whom force was used;” “17. Acknowledgement of
constitutional requirements for the use of force in an institutional/ correctional setting (Hudson v
McMillan, 503 US 1 [1993]).”4
135.

In addition to the excessive force used against Ms. McCully, the culture and

environment of brutality endemic within the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, and the lack of an
adequate use of force policy, training, supervision and discipline of law enforcement officers is
evidenced by a significant history and custom of brutality, including the following incidents.
136.

On September 26, 2007, Brock John Behler, then an inmate in the Jail, was

excessively forcefully placed in a bear-hug type hold by Deputy Dennis Grivois. Deputy Grivois
claimed Mr. Behler fought back while he was being restrained, so Deputy Grivois threw Mr.
Behler to the floor, breaking Mr. Behler’s arm. El Paso County settled the civil rights case for
$80,000 in 2010.5

4

Organizational Assessment at p.46-47
Rick Montanez, “County to Pay Out $80k to Ex-Inmate Over Lawsuit, KTTVO 11 News, June 15, 2010 (see:
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/96440444.html)

5

38

137.

Although then-Sheriff Maketa tried to absolve himself of responsibility for

Deputy Grivois’ use of excessive force, stating “We can’t defend what that deputy did,”6 Sheriff
Maketa’s lack of a constitutionally adequate Use of Force Policy and lack of training respecting
use of force were directly responsible for Mr. Behler’s injuries.
138.

In fact, during his tenure, then-Sheriff Maketa allegedly had his hands full

carrying on simultaneous liaisons with numerous female subordinates, and allegedly was busy
doling out preferential treatment to those with whom he had intimate sexual relations and
discriminating against subordinates who refused to engage in such intimate sexual relations with
him.7
139.

According to an official Organizational Assessment paid for by public funds,

these alleged actions and inactions on the part of then-Sheriff Maketa resulted in “an absence of
leadership and supervisory training and accountability”8 and led to a “total breakdown in
morality and professionalism”9 within the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.
140.

The dramatic increase in use of force incidents in the Jail between 2010 and 2014

described above directly coincides with then-Sheriff Maketa’s increasing distraction by his
alleged affairs and related extracurricular activities which caused the breakdown in supervision
and training.
141.

During these years, then-Sheriff Maketa was “asleep at the wheel,” or worse, and

inmates like Ms. McCully and others described below paid the price.

6

Id.
Kirk Mitchell, “Federal Judge Says Some Claims Against Former El Paso Sheriff Will Go Forward,” The Denver
Post, April 1, 2016 (see: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29713194/federal-judge-says-some-claims-againstformer-el)
8
Organizational Assessment at p.7.
9
Organizational Assessment at p.8.
7

39

142.

On October 6, 2009, an El Paso County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team stormed into

the home of Rose Santistevan, 69, as part of a drug bust in which her son, Kirt, was targeted.
However, Kirt Santistevan was then in custody at the Teller County Jail on a DUI charge, a fact
allegedly known to the SWAT team deputies. Nevertheless, although Ms. Santistevan’s house
contained numerous signs warning she used oxygen, deputies forced their way in, battering in
her door with a ram, shattering glass all over her living room, and charging in while displaying
automatic weapons. A flash bang was also detonated. Deputies seized Ms. Santistevan at
gunpoint as her home filled with smoke and she tried to breathe with an oxygen hose. Ms.
Santistevan was rushed to the hospital for respiratory and heart problems and spent a week
recuperating there. El Paso County settled this lawsuit for $75,000 in 2013.10
143.

On September 13, 2011, Deputy Marcus Miller shot and killed Christine Vargas

as she tried to drive away from him and two other deputies, and in the process drove over Deputy
Miller’s foot. El Paso County settled this civil rights lawsuit in 2015 for $300,000.
Nevertheless, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office and the Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s
Office condoned and ratified Deputy Miller’s outrageous and unforgiveable use of lethal
excessive force. Deputy Miller was cleared of criminal wrongdoing, and his only punishment
was a 20-hour suspension without pay for drawing a weapon when such force was not warranted.
As of August 2015, Deputy Miller remained employed on the force. The two other deputies
involved in the fatal incident, Deputy Glenn Boardman and Deputy Christopher Gonzalez,
received only letters of reprimand for policy violations, such as failing to notify dispatch that
they had stopped a vehicle. They were later promoted to detective and sergeant, respectively. At

10

Pam Zubeck, “El Paso County Deputies Hear Excessive-Force Accusations,” The Colorado Springs Independent,
August 5, 2015 (see: http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/el-paso-county-deputies-hear-excessive-forceaccusations/Content?oid=3255850).

40

the time, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office lacked a policy on the use of lethal force, any
recognition of the sanctity of life or of the significance of using deadly force, and any policy with
regard to shooting at or from moving vehicles and tactically approaching vehicles.11 Christine
Vargas paid with her life for these omissions and others, an attendant lack of training, and
ratification of the casual use of lethal force.12
144.

On June 11, 2013, correctional officer Deputy Patrick Smith attacked inmate

Robert Montoya without any provocation, striking Mr. Montoya in the face, pushing him into a
wall, beating him and sitting on him. Not only was Mr. Montoya seriously injured, but just as in
Ms. McCully’s case, correctional officers acted with deliberate indifference to the serious
medical injuries they themselves had caused. Mr. Montoya was refused medical treatment for
his injuries that resulted in further injuries and aggravation of injuries, including a concussion,
memory and cognitive problems, increased anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. El Paso
County settled this civil rights lawsuit for $24,999 in 2015. As in the case of Christine Vargas,
the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office condoned and ratified Deputy Smith’s use of excessive force
and deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs by retaining him on the force,
where he remained employed as a deputy as of August 2015.13
145.

In the context of the incidents detailed above and many others, the lack of a

constitutionally acceptable use of force policy, the absence of accountability and training and a
general breakdown of any kind of order, trust or ethics on then-Sheriff Maketa’s watch, the
excessive force used against Ms. McCully is not at all surprising, and clearly reflects the very

11

Organizational Assessment at p. 46.
Zubeck, “El Paso County Deputies Hear Excessive-Force Accusations,” supra, fn 10.
13
Id.
12

41

modus operandi or standard operating procedure of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office at the
time.
146.

El Paso County’s custom, pattern and practice of excessive force and deliberate

indifference to a detainee’s known serious medical condition caused Plaintiff McCully severe
physical and emotional damage.
D. EL PASO COUNTY’S CUSTOM, PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF DELIBERATE
INDIFFERENCE TO INMATES’ SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS
147.

El Paso County and the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office maintained

constitutionally deficient policies and neglected to train its employees with respect to the proper
procedures for the evaluation and treatment of inmates’ serious medical needs.
148.

El Paso County Sheriff’s Office deputies engaged in a persistent custom and

practice of law enforcement misconduct with respect to the treatment of detainees with serious
medical and/or mental health needs, and the officials responsible for assuring that such
misconduct does not occur consistently failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline
individual officers who have engaged in such misconduct.
149.

Specifically, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office Use of Force policy in effect at

the time omitted any mention of a duty on the part of officers or medical staff to provide medical
assistance to persons against whom force was used.14
150.

Not only did the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office consistently fail to provide

constitutionally adequate medical care to inmates, with respect to inmates with mental illness,
the Organizational Assessment notes:
“[The Organizational Assessment’s authors] [were] told that ‘80% of the population have
mental health problems and over 1/3 of the [inmate] population are on medications for a
mental illness.’… The 2014 data would suggest that approximately 12.3% of the 2014
inmate population suffered a recognized mental health condition.”… [Yet] [m]ental health
14

Organizational Assessment at p.47.

42

support is on-site from 0700 hrs. to 2100 hrs. each day. Staff is without these mental health
service personnel for the remaining 10 hours of the day. For 42% of any day, staff is
expected to address the mental health behavioral and needs of the population during the
absence of the mental health staff.”15
151.

El Paso County law enforcement officers have repeatedly and unlawfully shown

deliberate indifference to and ignored the serious medical and/ or mental health conditions of its
inmates, which has resulted in numerous serious and preventable injuries to Jail inmates, some of
which are detailed below.
152.

On January 7, 2013, Christopher Spencer nearly died after being shot in the chest

during an attempted robbery in Colorado Springs. Mr. Spencer was transferred from a hospital
to the Jail on February 15, 2013. Because of the gunshot wounds, Mr. Spencer’s circulation was
compromised and his feet began to swell, his feet and toes turning multicolored. Despite his
debilitating pain, Mr. Spencer was not provided with a wheelchair, and ultimately he was
transferred to a cellblock where his brother cared for his feet for a period of three weeks. The
gangrene left Mr. Spencer’s feet and toes visibly festering with sores and, eventually, rock hard
and rotten, and rendered him unable to walk without debilitating pain. Through petitions, Mr.
Spencer and other inmates begged deputies to get him the medical help he needed, but there
pleas fell on deaf ears. It was not until Mr. Spencer’s family bailed him out of the Jail on April
16, 2013, that he received proper medical care, but by then his toes and part of his left foot had to
be amputated. A lawsuit with respect to Jail staff’s deliberate indifference to Mr. Spencer’s
obvious and serious medical condition is pending against El Paso County and the individual
officers involved.16

15

Id. at p. 18-19.
Kirk Mitchell, “Man Sues El Paso County Jail After Losing All Toes, Foot to Gangrene,” The Denver Post,
February 24, 2016 (see: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27591383/man-sues-el-paso-county-jail-after-losing)

16

43

153.

As detailed above in ¶ [136], in June 2013, El Paso County Jail staff turned a

blind eye to Mr. Montoya’s serious medical injuries – injuries caused by Deputy Patrick Smith in
a vicious and totally unprovoked attack. Due to the denial of constitutionally adequate medical
care, Mr. Montoya suffered deteriorating and severe injuries. As detailed above, the El Paso
County Sheriff’s Office condoned and ratified Deputy Smith’s actions and inactions by retaining
Deputy Smith on the force as of August 2015.
154.

Viewed in light of the incidents above, Defendants’ deliberate indifference to

Plaintiff’s obvious and serious medical needs, as evidenced by her near inability to stand up or
walk, the deep purple bruising visible all over her legs, knees and arms, and her repeated pleas
for help and continued insistence that her left knee was broken and she needed to be taken to a
hospital, can only be seen as customary. Defendants’ simultaneous awareness of and disregard
for Plaintiff’s serious medical needs was the rule, not the exception, and merely reflected the
custom, practice and pattern of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office at the time. This cruel
standard operating procedure stemmed from the lack of any written policy with respect to the
provision of medical assistance to inmates against whom excessive force is used, a general lack
of leadership, accountability and training emanating from the very top of then-Sheriff Maketa’s
Office, and the routine ratification of officers’ deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious medical
needs.
155.

As a result of Defendants’ blatantly illegal actions, Ms. McCully has suffered

grave and lasting physical and emotional damage.

44

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Violation – Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 6 and
El Paso County)
156.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
157.

Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg and John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 6

and El Paso County were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions that
occurred at all times relevant to this action.
158.

At the time when Plaintiff was knocked down and restrained by Defendants

Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg and John Doe 1 with excessive force, Ms. McCully had a clearly
established constitutional right to be secure in her person from excessive force.
159.

Defendants herein knew, and any reasonable law enforcement officer knew or

should have known of this clearly established right.
160.

Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg and John Doe 1 engaged in use of force

that was objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them,
violating Ms. McCully’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.
161.

Defendants Grady’s, Farrell’s, Hanenberg’s and John Doe 1’s respective actions

and inactions, as described above, were motivated by intent to harm Plaintiff.
162.

Defendants Grady’s, Farrell’s, Hanenberg’s and John Doe 1’s respective actions

and inactions, as described herein, were undertaken intentionally, maliciously, willfully,
wantonly, and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.

45

163.

The acts and omissions of each Defendant described herein, were the legal and

proximate cause of Ms. McCully’s damages.
164.

The acts and omissions of Defendants Grady, Farrell, Hanenberg and John Doe 1

were engaged in pursuant to the custom, policy, and practice of the El Paso County Defendants,
which encouraged, condoned, tolerated, and ratified the use of excessive force by law
enforcement officers, lacked a written use of force policy and failed to adequately train its
employees with respect to the use of excessive force.
165.

The acts or omissions of the El Paso County Defendants caused Ms. McCully to

suffer severe physical and emotional damages.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment; Failure to Provide Medical Care and Treatment
(Against All Defendants)
166. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein.
167. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants were acting
under color of state law.
168. Ms. McCully had a clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment to be
free from deliberate indifference to her known serious medical needs.
169. Each individual Defendant knew or should have known of this clearly established right
at the time of Ms. McCully’s detainment.
170. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, each individual Defendant
knew of and disregarded the excessive risks associated with Ms. McCully’s serious and obvious
medical condition, and risks associated with their failure to provide or procure medical treatment
for her medical needs.
46

171. Nevertheless, with deliberate indifference to Ms. McCully’s constitutional right to
adequate medical care, as provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Defendants knowingly failed to examine, treat, and/or care for Ms. McCully’s worsening
condition. They did so despite their knowledge of Ms. McCully’s serious medical needs, thereby
placing her at risk of serious physical harm and continuing unabated pain. Therefore,
Defendants knew or were aware that Ms. McCully faced a substantial risk of harm and
disregarded this excessive risk by failing to take measures to reduce it.
172. When Ms. McCully alerted each Defendant to her need for medical assistance,
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Ms. McCully’s readily apparent need for
medical attention and her constitutional rights by providing constitutionally inadequate medical
attention and treatment for her.
173. All of the deliberately indifferent acts of each individual Defendant were conducted
within the scope of their official duties and employment.
174. The acts or omissions of each individual Defendant were the legal and proximate
cause of Ms. McCully’s injuries and ongoing, excruciating pain.
175. The acts and omissions of each individual Defendant caused Ms. McCully damages in
that she suffered extreme physical and mental pain while she was in Defendants’ custody for
approximately 5 days.
176. The intentional actions or inactions of each individual Defendant as described herein
intentionally deprived Ms. McCully of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and
immunities secured by the Constitution, and caused her other damages.
177. The acts and omissions of the Individual Defendants were engaged in pursuant to the
custom, policy, and practice of the El Paso County Defendants, which at the time lacked a
47

written policy with respect to the provision of medical assistance to inmates against whom
excessive force was used, generally operated under a serious absence of leadership,
accountability and training coming from the very top, and routinely condoned, tolerated, and
ratified officers’ deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of inmates.
178. The El Paso County Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, customs, or practices, as
described herein, were the legal and proximate cause of Ms. McCully’s deprivation of
appropriate medical care at the Jail.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor
and against Defendants, and award her all relief as allowed by law and equity, including, but not
limited to the following:
a. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as appropriate;
b. Actual economic damages as established at trial;
c. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to those for past and future
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical bills, and other non-pecuniary
losses;
d. Punitive damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be determined
at trial;
e. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief, including but not
limited to:
i. Issuance of a formal written apology from each Defendant to Plaintiff;
ii. The imposition of policy changes designed to avoid future similar
misconduct by the Individual Defendants; and
48

iii. Imposition of disciplinary action against appropriate employees of the El
Paso County Defendants;
f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
g. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and
h. Such further relief as justice requires.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
DATED this 15th day of April 2016.
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
s/ David A. Lane
__________________________
David A. Lane
Darold W. Killmer
Eudoxie (Dunia) Dickey
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

49