alexis acker lawsuit

8/20/2019 Alexis Acker Lawsuit

1/24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No._______________

Alexis Marie Acker,Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,

PETER CAREY, Chief of Police, Colorado Springs Police Department, in his officialcapacity,

Tyler Walker, Colorado Springs Police Department, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND _________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, Shimon Kohn of the Shimon Kohn, P.C. Law

Firm, Ann Kaufman of the Ann Kaufman, P.C. Law Firm, and Winegar Law, LLC,

respectfully allege for their Complaint as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Alexis Acker, brings this action for money damages brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution and under the common law of Colorado and the Colorado

Constitution against the above named Defendants.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 1:15-cv-01582 Document 1 Filed 07/24/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24


2/24

2. 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 and the common law of

the State of Colorado.

3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees and costs is conferred by 42

U.S.C. 1988.

4. 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 of Colorado at the time of the events giving rise to this litigation.

5. Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Claims with the proper parties pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-

10-101 et. seq.

III. PARTIES

Plaintiff

6. The Plaintiff, ALEXIS MARIE ACKER, is a citizen and resident of Colorado Springs, El

Paso County, State of Colorado.

Defendants

7. Defendant, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, is a Colorado municipal corporation and

is responsible for the training, supervision, official policies, customs, and actual

practices of its agents, the Colorado Springs Police Department (“CSPD”) and the

Chief of Police of the CSPD.

8. Defendant, PETER CAREY, Chief of Police, Colorado Springs Police Department, is a

citizen and resident of El Paso County, Colorado, and was at all times material to the

allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a Police Officer employed by the



3/24

City of Colorado Springs, Colorado and was acting under color of state law. As Chief,

Peter Carey is responsible for the training and supervision of CSPD personnel and is

the final policymaker for the CSPD. Peter Carey is sued in his official capacity.

9. Defendant, Officer TYLER WALKER, Colorado Springs Police Department, is a citizen

and resident of El Paso County, Colorado, and was at all times material to the

allegations in this Complaint, acting in his capacity as a Police Officer employed by the

City of Colorado Springs, Colorado and was acting under color of state law. Tyler

Walker is sued in his official and individual capacities.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. On November 21, 2013, officers from the Colorado Springs Police Department were

dispatched to the Plaintiff’s home in Colorado Springs, 4173 Charleston Drive, in

response to a report of a potential disturbance.

11. When police responded and made contact with the occupants of the home it was

determined that one of the occupants (Tyrin Tanks) was wanted on an active warrant

and was arrested.

12. Alexis Acker, who was 18 years old and visibly intoxicated, attempted to say goodbye

to Tanks and tightly embraced him at which time Officer Walker physically removed

Ms. Acker from her embrace with Mr. Tanks.

13. According to Officer Walker, Ms. Acker resisted his tactics to physically control her

(which involved applying certain painful grips to Ms. Acker) at which time Officer

Walker claims Ms. Acker attempted to kick at him and another officer striking the other

officer (Sergeant Mary Walsh) in the thigh.



4/24

14. Officer Walker admits that at this point he pinned Ms. Acker “face-down” on a sofa and

advised Ms. Acker that she was under arrest. Ms. Acker panicked because she could

not breathe and flailed her arms and legs, kicking and twisting in an attempt to unbury

her face out of the cushions of the sofa so that she could reach air and breathe.

15. Officer Walker and the other officer then walked Ms. Acker whose hands were

handcuffed behind her back to Officer Walker’s patrol car , where according to Officer

Walker, Ms. Acker refused to enter and sit down in the back seat of the patrol car.

16. Officer Walker admits that he “pushed” Ms. Acker in her waist area causing her to sit in

the car and claims that Ms. Acker “sat back in the seat and deliberately attempted to

kick at the two officers.”

17. What Officer Walker described as a “push” was actually an open fisted punching

technique involving enough force that it caused Ms. Acker to fold at the waist and to be

thrown backwards onto the back seat of the patrol car where she landed on her back

and arms with no ability to protect herself because her hands were handcuffed behind

her back.

18. Officer Walker then drove Ms. Acker to Memorial Hospital for medical clearance due to

Ms. Acker’s high-level of intoxication. Because Ms. Acker was underage and

intoxicated she needed to be medical cleared in order to determine if it was medically

safe to book into the El Paso County Jail.

19. Surveillance video obtained from Memorial Hospital shows Office Walker leading Ms.

Acker (who is still handcuffed behind her back) down the corridor of the hospital.

Officer Walker is clutching Ms. Acker’s right bicep with his left hand. Ms. Acker is

walking appropriately and is not resisting Officer Walker in any way.



5/24

20. Officer Walker leads Ms. Acker to a point in the corridor and turns her so that she is

standing facing him with her back facing the adjacent wall in front of a plastic, armless

chair.

21. Although there is no audio, the video clearly shows Ms. Acker standing nearly

motionless as Officer Walker and Ms. Acker are apparently talking. According to Officer

Walker he was ordering Ms. Acker to sit and she was not complying with his “sit” order.



6/24

22. The video clearly shows that Ms. Acker was standing almost motionless talking to

Officer Walker and had not made any movement that could have been misinterpreted

by Officer Walker as an aggressive or threatening movement.

23. As Ms. Acker is standing nearly motionless, facing Officer Walker with her hands

handcuffed behind her back, Officer Walker inexplicably, and without warning strikes

Ms. Acker in the waist with an open fist with enough force to cause Ms. Acker to fold at

the waist and be knocked off her feet into the chair behind her.

24. As Ms. Acker is slammed against the chair she reacts by making a kicking motion

towards Officer Walker with her right foot from her seated position in the chair.

25. Officer Walker claims in his official, written report that after he “pushed” her down into

the chair, Ms. Acker kicked him in the “crotch” area causing him immediate pain.

Officer Walker described the kick as “more of a forward extension of her leg, with the

bottom flat portion of her boot striking my pelvic area, rather than that of an upward

sweeping kicking motion directed towards my genitals.”



7/24

26. The surveillance video obtained from Memorial Hospital, however, contradicts Officer

Walker’s version of the facts. At the point in the video after Officer Walker knocked Ms.

Acker off of her feet and into the chair, Ms. Acker’s right foot is seen kicking forward.

27. When Ms. Acker kicks with her right foot it is important to note that she is seated in the

chair with her hands handcuffed behind her back. Officer Walker is standing upright

with his back to the camera which places him at a 90 degree angle with the plane of

the front of his body roughly even with the plane of the left side of Ms. Acker’s seated

body. In other words, Officer Walker was not directly in front of Ms. Acker nor was the

front of his body facing the front of Ms. Acker’s body.

28. It is clear from the video that Officer Walker’s version of the facts is untrue and that his

claim of being kicked in the groin is false. The video when slowed to 25% speed shows

Ms. Acker’s right foot move in a sweeping motion forward and up from her seated,

handcuffed position and appears to completely miss Officer Walker’s body. What is

observed, however, is that the clipboard Officer Walker is holding in his left hand flips

outward away from his body. The video shows that Ms. Acker did not contact Officer

Walker with her foot but rather contacted the clipboard he was holding in his left hand.

Further, if Officer Walker had actually been kicked in his groin area his body would

have moved, flinched or reacted in some involuntary manner consistent with a male

being kicked in such a sensitive area. Officer Walker’s body makes no such movement

and, in fact, it appears that Ms. Acker’s foot is moving cleanly past Officer Walker’s

body and contacting his clipboard. The following two photographs show the laptop

flipping out away from Officer Walker’s body.



8/24

29. As Ms. Acker remains in her defenseless, handcuffed, seated position, Officer Walker

is seen lunging towards Ms. Acker, grasping her by her left arm (which is chicken-

winged behind her back) with his left hand and with his right hand grasping her by the

base of her skull where it connects to her neck.



9/24

30. Officer Walker then in one fluid motion, lifts Ms. Acker out of the chair in an arc at a

height approximately even with his shoulders and with great and excessive force and in

an arching and twisting motion drives her face-first into the hard-surfaced floor.

31. It is obvious on the video that Officer Walker puts all of his weight and force into driving

Ms. Acker’s face violently into the floor while gripping her at the base of the skull in

order to maximizing the impact, pain and injury.



10/24

32. After violently slamming Ms. Acker face-first to the floor Officer Walker immediately

drives his knee into the small of her back placing his weight on his knee which is

against her spine. Officer Walker continues to clutch Ms. Acker by the base of her

skull/neck joint and sit on her for more than 2-1/2 minutes as blood begins to pool on

the floor and in spite of admitting he immediately saw “splattered blood coming from

her mouth.” Officer Walker admits that he was aware he had caused her injury and had

knocked her tooth out yet continues to sit with his knee on her spine and in spite of the

fact that Ms. Acker is offering no resistance. Officer Walker appears to be scolding her

during this time.

33. As blood runs from Ms. Acker’s mouth and begins to pool on the floor, Officer Walker

continues to sit with his knee in the small of her back for more than two and a half

minutes. As a result of Officer Walker’s use of excessive and unnecessary force, Ms.

Acker among other injuries suffered serious bodily injury to her mouth, face and head.



11/24

34. After Officer Walker’s assault of Ms. Acker she was chained to a hospital bed while she

waited for a CT scan of her head/neck. Officer Walker was relieved by Officer Anthony

Carey who was tasked with waiting at the hospital until Ms. Acker could be medically

cleared and released for transport to the jail. After the CT scan was completed Officer

Carey was advised by Dr. Cohen that Ms. Acker had suffered “moderate” injuries to her

mouth and would not be cleared for several more hours due to the need to have Ms.

Acker evaluated by an oral surgeon. It is important to note that although Officer Carey

claims that Dr. Cohen described Ms. Acker’s injuries as “moderate,” citizens in this

jurisdiction are routinely charged with 2nd Degree Assault (which carries a mandatory

prison sentence) because under Colorado law, knocking someone’s took out

constitutes “serious bodily injury.”

35. Ms. Acker was later evaluated by Dr. Hall, DDS who determined that Ms. Acker’s #7

and #9 teeth had Class I mobility and tooth #8 had Class II mobility. Additionally, Dr.

Hall determined that Tooth #7 had blunting of apex consistent with a traumatic event-



12/24

irreversible pulpitis with apical periodontis; Tooth #8 had blunting of apex consistent

with a traumatic event- irreversible pulpitis with apical periodontis; Tooth #9 had

blunting of apex consistent with a traumatic event, Tooth # 9 also has visible fracturein

the enamel running from the mid-mesial aspect of the tooth towards the incisal edge.

Dr. Hall also noted left temporomandibular joint disorder, articular disk disorder with

sounds on opening. Tooth #8 had been evulsed. Dr. Hall determined that both

damaged teeth would require root canal therapy. Dr. Hall advised that this would be a

temporary treatment intended to keep the damaged teeth in place until Ms. Acker is old

enough to accept dental implants which will be required to replace the two damaged

teeth. Dr. Hall also advised that there was damage to Ms. Acker’s jaw joint which would

require her to wear internal appliance for an extended period of time to rehabilitate and

strengthen the joint.

36. In addition to the serious dental injuries Ms. Acker has also suffered from intense

headaches, dizziness, nausea, soreness in her neck and upper back. To this day Ms.

Acker continues to suffer from intense headaches, dizziness and nausea.

37. Officer Walker made provably false statements to Officer Anthony Carey and Sergeant

Mary Walsh. Office Carey states in his report that Officer Walker told him that after Ms.

Acker refused to be seated that he “assisted” Ms. Acker to be seated. According to

Officer Carey, Officer Walker told him that after he assisted Ms. Acker to be seated that

Ms. Acker “kicked him with both feet.” Officer Walker also told Officer Carey that he

then “escorted” Ms. Acker to the floor.



13/24

38. Officer Walker’s statements to Officer Carey were not misstatements nor were they

Officer Carey’s interpretation or paraphrasing of Officer Walker’s statements. Officer

Walker made similar false statements to Sergeant Mary Walsh.

39. According to Sergeant Walsh, Officer Walker also told her that Ms. Acker had “kicked

him with both feet in the groin.” Officer Walker told Sergeant Walsh that Ms. Acker

“refused to sit in the chair so he had to push her down into the chair to get her seated.”

Officer Walker told Sergeant Walsh that in order to do that he was standing directly in

front of her. Officer Walker stated that as soon as Ms. Acker sat down that “she put her

head back and lifted both feet up and kicked him very forcibly in the groin area.” Officer

Walker also told Sergeant Walsh that after Ms. Acker kicked him in the groin with both

feet that he “gr abbed her by both shoulders, and rolled her out of the chair to the floor. ”

40. Officer Walsh also states that she spoke with a Memorial Hospital employee (who was

also a city employee at the time) who according to Sergeant Walsh, described the

incident involving Officer Walker as “he simply kind of rolled her out of the chair onto

the floor.” Sergeant Walsh fails to identify the Memorial Hospital employee who

allegedly made the statement.

41. Officer Walker admitted that Ms. Acker was not resisting when he removed her from

his patrol car or during their walking into Memorial hospital and down the corridor to the

plastic chair. The video shows that Ms. Acker is not resisting and is not in any way

being aggressive towards Officer Walker; in fact it shows that prior to Officer Walker

beginning his assault Ms. Acker is standing facing him, nearly motionless and

defenseless with her hands handcuffed behind her back calmly speaking to him.



14/24

42. The video shows that Ms. Acker was in a no way a threat to Officer Walker when he

suddenly punched her in the waist area knocking her off her feet into the chair. The

video shows that in spite of Ms. Acker (who was in a seated, handcuffed position in the

plastic, armless chair) attempting to kick one time with her right foot at Officer Walker

that he was in no danger and was still in control of the situation.

43. The video further shows that after Ms. Acker’s reactive, attempt to kick at Officer

Walker she is still seated and handcuffed behind her back and making no effort to

stand, leave her seat or kick again. Officer Walker was moving away from Ms. Acker

after striking her in the waist and was standing and in no danger. Officer Walker

actually had to step towards Ms. Acker and lean down in order to grab her by her left

bicep with his left hand and by her neck at the base of her skull with his right hand in

order to lift her entire body out of the seat and in an arching-twisting Mixed Martial Arts

style move which brought Ms. Acker to approximately his shoulder height prior to

driving her face-first into the floor. Officer Walker ignored all of his other options and

deliberately chose to escalate the situation by using obviously unnecessary and

excessive force against Ms. Acker who was at the time, an intoxicated, 5’4”, 110lb

female who was handcuffed behind her back and posing no danger to Officer Walker.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 1983 – 4th Amendment Violation-Excessive Force) (Against Tyler Walker in his individual and official capacities)

44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth

herein.

45. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:



15/24

Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usageof any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjectedany citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to thedeprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and lawshall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate

proceeding for redress…

46. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of the individual police

officer Defendants to this claim are persons for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

47. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all relevant times hereto, were acting under

color of state law in their capacity as Colorado Springs Police Officers and their acts

and/or omissions were within the scope of their duties or employment.

48. At the time of Plaintiff’s injuries caused by the excessive and unnecessary physical

assault by Officer Walker, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in her person

from unreasonable seizure through excessive force. Further, Officer Walker like any

reasonable law enforcement officer knew or should have known of this clearly

established right at the time of Plaintiff’s injuries.

49. Defendant Walker engaged in the use of force that was objectively unreasonable in light

of the facts and circumstances confronting him, thereby violating Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment rights and this use of objectively unreasonable force caused serious and

permanent physical and emotional injuries to Plaintiff.

50. Officer Walker’s actions and conduct under the circumstances involved an objectively,

unreasonable excessive use of force and was malicious, willful, wanton and involved a

reckless indifference to Ms. Acker’s constitutional rights, safety, health and life. Indeed,

his conduct was intentional and done with malice.



16/24

51. The willful and wanton acts and/or omissions of Defendant Walker were the moving

forces causing Plaintiff’s injuries and Defendant Walker’s acts and/or omissions

described herein deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional rights and caused her other

damages.

52. Defendant Walker is not entitled to qualified or any other type of immunity based on his

egregious, willful and wanton conduct.

53. As a proximate result of Defendant Walker’s unlawful and outrageous contact, Plaintiff

has suffered actual physical and emotional injuries and other damages and losses as

described herein entitling her to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be

proven at trial.

54. As a further result of Defendant Walker’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred

special damages, including medically related expenses and will continue to incur

further medical and other special damages, related expenses, in amounts to be proven

at trial.

55. Plaintiff is further entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988, pre-judgment and post judgment interests and costs allowable by federal and

state law.

56. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff is

entitled to punitive damages (which may be pled through amendment at the

appropriate time) against Defendant Walker individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that

the actions of Defendant Walker, individually, for his conduct which was malicious,

reckless, willful, and with wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.



17/24

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs,Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

(Against City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey in his official capacity)

57. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forthherein.

58. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that:

Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usageof any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjectedany citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to thedeprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and lawshall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate

proceeding for redress…

59. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and Defendants to this action are

persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

60. The Defendants at all times relevant were acting under the color of state law.

61. At the time of Officer Walker’s assault and battery of Plaintiff, she had the clearly

established right to be secure in her person from unreasonable seizures through

excessive force, under the Fourth Amendment.

62. The Defendants, City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey knew or should have

known of these rights at the time of Officer Walker’s assault and battery of Plaintiff as

they were clearly established at that time.

63. The acts and/or omissions of these Defendants, as described herein, deprived Plaintiff

of her constitutional and statutory rights and caused her other damages.

64. The acts and/or omissions of these Defendants as described herein intentionally

deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional and statutory rights and caused her other

damages.



18/24

65. Defendants City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey are not entitled to qualified

immunity for the complained of conduct described herein.

66. Upon information and belief, the Defendant City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey

developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices exhibiting

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens , which were also moving

forces behind and proximately caused the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional, federal

and state rights as set forth herein and other claims, and also reflected a conscious or

deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various available

alternatives.

67. Upon information and belief, the Defendants City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey

have created and tolerated and maintained long-standing, department-wide customs,

law enforcement related policies, procedures and customs, practices, and/or failed to

properly train and/or supervise its officers in a manner amounting to deliberate

indifference with respect to the use of force, including potentially deadly force to

persons in police custody.

68. The need to provide specialized training and supervision to officers whose duties and

responsibilities include arresting, handcuffing, transporting, and safely detaining and

dealing with under-aged, intoxicated individuals (like Ms. Acker) is obvious.

69. Equally obvious, is that the failure to adequately train and supervise such officers is

likely to result in the types of violations of constitutional, federal and state rights such

as those described herein and that such failure is also likely to result in the types of

injuries suffered by this Plaintiff, Ms. Acker.



19/24

70. The Defendants City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey’s failure to provide such

specialized training and supervision is deliberately indifferent to those rights. The

deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by these Defendants resulted

from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among the

various alternatives available to these defendants resulted in the injuries suffered by

Plaintiff at the hands of Officer Tyler Walker.

71. As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered very serious physical and emotional injuries, and other losses as described

herein entitling her to compensatory and special damages, and other damages as

allowed by law and as described throughout this Complaint, in amounts to be proven at

trial.

72. Finally, as the violent assault that occurred in this matter is capable of repetition and

evading review, and also of occurring again to Plaintiff and other citizens of Colorado

Springs in the future, Plaintiff seeks appropriate declaratory relief and injunctive relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants above described ongoing

deliberate indifference in training and supervision policies, practices, habits, customs,

and usages with respect to the rights described herein, and with respect to the ongoing

policy and/or practice of the Defendants City of Colorado Springs and Peter Carey

regarding the use of excessive force and failure to train regarding injuring members of

the public either during or subsequent to arrest.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Common Law(Willful and Wanton/Intentional Assault and Battery Against)(Against Tyler Walker in his individual and official capacities)



20/24

73. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.

74. Defendant Tyler Walker is a public employee within the meaning of the Colorado

Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-103.

75. Defendant Tyler Walker is not entitled to immunity under the Colorado Governmental

Immunity Act because his acts and omissions were willful and wanton within the

meaning of C.R.S. §§ 24-10-105(1) and 24-10-118.

76. Defendant Tyler Walker was acting within the scope of his employment when he

intentionally committed such willful and wanton acts and omissions that created an

unreasonable risk of proximately causing Ms. Acker’s severe and persisting physical

and emotional injuries, damages and losses set forth herein.

77. As set forth above in this Complaint, Defendant Tyler Walker ’s conduct resulted in and

constituted unlawful physical contact with Plaintiff. Defendant Walker’s willful, wanton

and intentional conduct was intended by Walker to make physically offensive and

harmful contact with Plaintiff. Walker’s conduct was physically harmful, offensive and

outrageous.

78. Defendant Walker was consciously aware that his intentional, willful, wanton, overt and

outrageous conduct, acts and/or omissions were creating unconsented harm and

offensive contact and serious bodily injury and damage to the bodily integrity of Plaintiff

and yet acted heedlessly, recklessly, and/or outrageously, in reflective disregard of and

without regard to the rights, bodily integrity and safety of Plaintiff, purposefully allowing

and causing this harm and injury to Plaintiff.

79. Defendant Walker intentionally, willfully and wantonly caused these physical, emotional

and economic injuries to Plaintiff.



21/24

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Walker’s willful and wanton conduct in

committing batteries against Plaintiff, Plaintiff was severely injured, traumatized, and is

suffering ongoing physical injuries, harm and emotional distress which requires

ongoing care and treatment including medical evaluations, physical therapy, root

canals, crowns, dental implants and joint rehabilitation. As a result of the injuries

caused by Defendant Walker, Plaintiff has ongoing limitations, impairments,

impingements on her functional capacities, pain and suffering as well as past, present

and future medical expenses.

81. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to general and compensatory damages for such injuries,

pain and suffering, physical impairment and disability as well as to special damages for

any medical and health care related expenses in an amount to be proven at trial.

82. There is no cap under the Governmental Immunity Act on this state law claim as

Defendant Walker’s conduct, acts and omissions were willful and wanton within the

meaning of C.R.S. § 24-10-118.

83. Plaintiff hereby gives notice that she may be seeking exemplary damages for willful

and wanton acts of individual Defendant Tyler Walker on this state law claim upon

appropriate amendment.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Common Law(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

(Against Tyler Walker in his individual and official capacities)

84. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth

herein.



22/24

85. Tyler Walker’s decision to apply the excessive and potentially deadly force by picking

up a defenseless, 18 year old, 5’-4”, 110 lb intoxicated female (who at the time was

seated with her hands handcuffed behind her back) by her upper arm and the base of

her skull and neck then lifting her to approximately his shoulder height and in a

twisting, arching motion slamming her face-first into the hard floor while putting all of

his weight and force behind the assault, and where there was no emergency or

imminent threat of injury to anyone or any police officer was extreme and outrageous

conduct.

86. Acting under the color of law, Tyler Walker intentionally, recklessly or with deliberate

indifference and callous disregard of Plaintiff ’s rights proximately caused and was

intended to cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff and damage to her in various

respects. Tyler Walker’s actions and conduct as described herein deprived Ms. Acker

of her rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the

United States of America and the State of Colorado and the actions and conduct of

Tyler Walker are the direct and proximate cause of the damages and injuries suffered

by Ms. Acker. Ms. Acker is entitled to the damages described throughout this

Complaint in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in herfavor and against each of the Defendants, and award her all relief allowed by law,including but not limited to the following:

(a) Appropriate relief at law and equity;

(b) Declaratory relief and other appropriate equitable relief;

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



23/24

(d) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotionaldistress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on allclaims 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) Attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action, including expert witnessfee, on all claims allowed by law;

(g) Pre- and post-judgment interest at the appropriate lawful rate;

(h) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief asallowed by law.

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

s/ signature: Shimon Kohn

____________________________Shimon Kohn, Esq.

Shimon Kohn, P.C.14 West Costilla StreetColorado Springs, CO 80903(719) 328-9555email: [email protected]. No.: 31710

Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ signature: Ann Kaufman

____________________________ Ann Kaufman, Esq.

Ann Kaufman, P.C.14 West Costilla StreetColorado Springs, CO 80903(719) 447-1511email: [email protected]. No.: 15089


s/ signature: Phil Winegar

____________________________



24/24

Phil Winegar, Esq.

Winegar Law, LLC.303 South Cascade Ave., Suite 101Colorado Springs, CO 80903

(719) 634-2336email: [email protected]. No.: 35207


*Electronically filed. Duly signed original on file at the offices of Shimon Kohn, P.C.


alexis acker lawsuit

Documents