Jones v. City and County of Denver et al

Filing 102

ORDER Granting 65 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief Consistent with the April 23, 2020 Order and 100 Judgment of the Court of Appeals. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/21/2020. (swest)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 17-cv-01131-CMA-SKC
DEON LAMON JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE MANRIQUEZ, and
GREGORY BLACK,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CONSISTENT
WITH THE APRIL 23, 2020 ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
This matter is before the Court on the April 23, 2020 Order and Judgment of the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. # 100), wherein the Court of Appeals reversed this
Court’s denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §
1983 Fourth Amendment claims (Doc. # 92). In its Order and Judgment, the Tenth
Circuit concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants violated his Fourth
Amendment rights as follows:
In sum, we determine that the officers had reasonable suspicion that
Jones was trespassing, such that their investigative detention of Jones did
not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. See [United States v. ]Sokolow,
490 U.S. [1,] 7[ (1989)]. We also determine that when Jones did not
comply with Black’s orders to exit his car, the officers had probable cause
that Jones violated a Denver ordinance, such that Jones’s arrest did not
violate his Fourth Amendment rights. See Atwater[ v. City of Lago Vista],
532 U.S. [318,] 354[ (2001)]. Further, we determine that the officers’

search of Jones was a lawful search incident to arrest under the Fourth
Amendment. See [Michigan v. ]DeFillippo, 443 U.S. [31,] 35[ (1979)].
Finally, we determine that because the stop was justified at its inception,
Jones did not demonstrate that Manriquez violated his Fourth Amendment
rights when he searched Jones’s car. See [United States v. ]King, 990
F.2d [1552,] 1557 [(10th Cir. 1993)].
(Doc. # 100 at 11.) The Court of Appeals went on to conclude that, even if Plaintiff had
established a constitutional violation on any of his claims, it would nevertheless have
granted Defendants qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show the law was
clearly established at the time of the incident. (Id. at 11–12.) Ultimately, the court held
that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and reversed this Court’s April 18,
2019 Order concluding otherwise. (Id. at 15–16.)
For the reasons set forth in the Order and Judgment of the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals (Doc. # 100), Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 65) as to
Plaintiff’s First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief is hereby GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of
Defendants on all claims in this action and shall close the case.

DATED: May 21, 2020
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2