Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No1:18-cv-00839-STV

SUSAN ULLERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, in his

official capacity;
WARDEN DAVID JOHNSON, in his individual and official capacities;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN TERRY JAQUES, in his individual and official capacities;
CORRECTIONAL SUPPORT TRADES SUPERVISOR BRUCE BRADLEY, in his individual
and official capacities;
CORRECTIONS OFFICER DAVID WANG, in his individual and official capacities;
CORRECTIONS OFFICER DAVID URICH, in his individual and official capacities;
CAPTAIN RAMONA AVANT, in her individual and official capacities;
INVESTIGATOR SCOTT SMITH, in his individual and official capacities;
CHIEF INVESTIGATOR DANNY LAKE, in his individual and official capacities;

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, David A. Lane and Liana Orshan of KILLMER,

LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, and Iris Eytan of EYTAN NIELSEN LLC, respectfully alleges for her First

Amended Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages and other relief against the prison official who

sexually assaulted Ms. Ullery while she was an inmate at Denver Women’s Correctional Facility,

and the prison officials whose actions and inactions led to the assault. Ms. Ullery was the victim

1
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 31

of a system that not only looked the other way as Defendant Bruce Bradley treated inmates as

objects of his own sexual gratification, but actually set Ms. Ullery up to be sexually assaulted by

a man with a known history of a sexual misconduct. As a result, Ms. Ullery has sustained

emotional injuries.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

1343(a)(3). Jurisdiction supporting Plaintiff’s claims 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 all times relevant to the subject matter of this First Amended

Complaint.

III. PARTIES

Plaintiff:

5. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this Complaint, Plaintiff Susan Ullery

was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado.

6. During the relevant time period, Ms. Ullery was detained at Denver Women’s

Correctional Facility, a facility within the Colorado Department of Corrections.

7. Ms. Ullery is no longer in detention; therefore, no administrative or other

exhaustion requirements apply to any of the legal claims asserted herein.

Defendants:

2
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 31

8. The Denver Women’s Correctional Facility (“DWCF”), located at 3600 Havana

Street, Denver, CO 80239, is a prison in the Colorado state prison system. It is operated by the

Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”), an agency of the State of Colorado that operates

state prisons and is responsible for maintaining and providing for the care, custody, and

supervision of individuals detained at such prisons.

9. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Rick

Raemisch was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Colorado and was acting under

color of state law in his capacity as the Executive Director of DOC. Pursuant to Colorado law,

Mr. Raemisch is the state official who manages, supervises, and controls the correctional

institutions operated by the State of Colorado, including DWCF, and who is responsible for

developing policies and procedures with respect to the operation of DOC and its facilities like

DWCF.

10. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant David

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

of state law in his capacity as Warden of DWCF. As the Warden, Mr. Johnson was responsible

for overseeing all operations at DWCF, including establishing procedures for the operations of

DWCF on a day-to-day basis, the hiring of prison staff, ensuring that all DWCF employees were

properly trained, and establishing internal security procedures.

11. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Terry

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

of state law in his capacity as Associate Warden of DWCF, which included overseeing

operations and hiring, training, and supervision of all staff at DWCF.

3
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 31

12. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Bruce

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

of state law in his capacity as a Correctional Support Trades Supervisor employed at DWCF.

13. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant David

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

state law in his capacity as a Correctional Officer employed at DWCF.

14. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant David

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

state law in his capacity as a Correctional Officer employed at DWCF.

15. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Ramona

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

state law in her capacity as a Captain employed at DWCF.

16. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Scott Smith

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

law in his capacity as an Investigator employed by DOC Office of Inspector General.

17. At all times relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, Defendant Danny Lake

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

law in his capacity as a Chief Investigator employed by DOC Office of Inspector General.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Defendant Bradley sexually harassed Ms. Ullery and other inmates at DWCF.

18. During the relevant time periods, Plaintiff Susan Ullery was incarcerated at the

Denver Women’s Correctional Facility.

4
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 31

19. Early in 2014, Ms. Ullery began working in Canteen Services at DWCF. She was

primarily responsible for assisting in loading and unloading goods from trucks at the facility’s

loading dock. She worked with three other female inmates.

20. Defendant Bruce Bradley was Ms. Ullery’s most senior supervisor. Ms. Ullery

had two other immediate supervisors, Defendants Corrections Officer (“CO”) David Wang and

CO David Urich, but Defendant Bradley was the highest-ranking officer in charge.

21. Approximately four months after Ms. Ullery began working on the loading dock,

Defendant Bradley started to sexually harass Ms. Ullery.

22. This was not the first time that Defendant Bradley had sexually harassed female

inmates who worked for him. Witnesses observed Defendant Bradley sexually harassing female

inmates under his employ at DWCF as early as 2008.

23. Upon information and belief, female inmates previously filed complaints or

grievances against Defendant Bradley alleging sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and he

previously had been investigated by DOC for similar conduct as that in which he engaged with

Ms. Ullery.

24. Although Defendant Bradley focused most of his harassment on Ms. Ullery, he

behaved inappropriately with the three other female inmates working with Ms. Ullery in Canteen

Services as well.

25. For instance, on one occasion, Ms. Ullery and her co-workers removed their boots

and socks to relieve the blisters that had developed on their feet while working on the dock.

Defendant Bradley closely observed the women as they removed their footwear and stared at

their bare feet at length. He then inquired as to whether the women took good care of their feet

5
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 31

and whether they painted their toenails. He told them that he wanted them to wear red nail polish

because that was his favorite color.

26. In the following days, Defendant Bradley repeatedly told the women that it was

time for a “pedi check.” When they refused to show him their feet or did not paint their toenails,

Defendant Bradley would behave rudely toward them.

27. Defendant Bradley also repeatedly told Ms. Ullery that his wife’s feet “turned

[him] on,” and he wanted Ms. Ullery to paint her toenails because that would sexually excite

him.

28. On at least one occasion, Defendant Bradley told Ms. Ullery about a new sex toy

that he had purchased to use with his wife. He also graphically described the sex acts that he

performed with his wife to Ms. Ullery.

29. Defendant Bradley’s practice of sexually harassing the women he supervised

became so pervasive that the women who worked on the dock made an agreement that if

Defendant Bradley was ever seen talking to one of the women, another would join her so that she

would not be left alone with him and thereby vulnerable to his harassment.

30. Ms. Ullery always tried to be in the company of the other women whenever

Defendant Bradley was present in an effort to dissuade him from further sexual harassment.

After several months, Defendant Bradley’s harassment of Ms. Ullery escalated.

31. About eight months after she began working for Canteen Services, Ms. Ullery and

the other Canteen Services workers were tasked with performing inventory, which entailed

tracking the goods in storage at DWCF. Defendant Bradley directly supervised their performance

of this task.

6
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 31

32. Defendant Bradley took the opportunity to repeatedly approach Ms. Ullery from

behind and forcefully press his genitals into her buttocks. Defendant Bradley at first pretended

like he had accidentally pushed his groin against Ms. Ullery’s buttocks, but then he lasciviously

moaned “mmmmmm” in Ms. Ullery’s ear.

33. Defendant Bradley repeated this behavior every time that Ms. Ullery worked

inventory.

34. In an effort to escape Defendant Bradley’s constant sexual harassment, Ms. Ullery

told him that she was a lesbian. Undeterred, Defendant Bradley pivoted to a fresh line of attack

in which he would discuss with Ms. Ullery the possibility of sexual encounters involving

himself, Ms. Ullery, and another woman.

35. Around October 2015, two of the other female inmates in Canteen Services were

released from prison, leaving Ms. Ullery and one other female inmate under Defendant Bradley’s

supervision.

36. Knowing of Defendant Bradley’s inappropriate behavior with Ms. Ullery, the

other female inmate tried to make sure that Ms. Ullery was never alone with Defendant Bradley,

but Defendant Bradley was able to find ways to be alone with Ms. Ullery.

37. For example, Defendant Bradley called Ms. Ullery into his office on a regular

basis; as an inmate, Ms. Ullery had no option but to oblige. On one occasion, Defendant Bradley

used Facebook to show Ms. Ullery pictures of the two other inmates who had worked in Canteen

Services before their parole, and he made comments to Ms. Ullery about how great they looked.

38. After the two other inmates left, Defendant Bradley’s harassment of Ms. Ullery

began to escalate. He started to demand that Ms. Ullery show him her breasts.

7
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 31

39. Defendant Bradley threatened Ms. Ullery with punishment if she refused. He told

Ms. Ullery that she was lucky to have her job with Canteen Services, and that he would remove

her from her job if she did not show him her breasts. Believing that she had no choice but to do

what he wanted because of his position of authority with DWCF, Ms. Ullery reluctantly showed

Defendant Bradley her breasts.

40. On another occasion, Ms. Ullery was in Defendant Bradley’s office shortly after

she had been informed of the death of a family member. Defendant Bradley suggested that him

“jacking off and [his] semen hitting [Ms. Ullery] in the face would make her feel better.”

41. Ms. Ullery’s lone remaining co-worker overheard Defendant Bradley make

similar comments to Ms. Ullery. For instance, she overheard him tell Ms. Ullery something to

the effect of “you know I shoot porno loads” and make a comment about wanting to “shove [his]

dick in [Ms. Ullery’s] ass.”

42. On still another occasion, Defendant Bradley received a voicemail from two

inmates at different facilities who were acquaintances of Ms. Ullery. He offered to let Ms. Ullery

call the offenders on his personal cell phone if she would masturbate for him; she refused.

43. Ms. Ullery repeatedly complained to David Wang and CO David Urich that

Defendant Bradley was sexually harassing and scaring her.

44. CO Wang and CO Urich did nothing to document Ms. Ullery’s report of

Defendant Bradley’s sexual harassment or to attempt to put a stop to it. Instead, they told her that

“that’s how he is” and to be “glad” that he “like[d] her.” One time after she complained, CO

Wang advised Ms. Ullery to go put “grandpa”—Defendant Bradley—in a good mood.

45. In addition to hearing Ms. Ullery’s account of the harassment, CO Wang also

witnessed an instance of Defendant Bradley’s harassment when CO Wang walked into

8
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 31

Defendant Bradley’s office when Ms. Ullery was there. CO Wang heard Defendant Bradley tell

Ms. Ullery to masturbate for him. Defendant Bradley told Ms. Ullery that if she did not, he

would write her up for disobeying a lawful order, and that she would lose her parole. Ms. Ullery

responded by telling Defendant Bradley he was “fucking crazy,” and leaving his office.

46. Ms. Ullery believed that at that point, CO Wang would report Defendant

Bradley’s behavior. However, she soon realized he must not have, because nothing changed.

Defendants Avant, Jaques, Smith, and Lake set Ms. Ullery up to be sexually assaulted by
Defendant Bradley.

47. On or about April 15, 2016, Ms. Ullery met with Defendant Investigator Scott

Smith from the DOC Office of the Inspector General about an unrelated issue. Investigator Smith

met with Ms. Ullery while she was at work at Canteen Services. Ms. Ullery told Investigator

Smith that she wanted to report an incident of staff misconduct, but because she feared that

Defendant Bradley would retaliate against her if her complaint was overheard, she told

Investigator Smith that the complaint was related to someone at work, and she asked Investigator

Smith if she could speak with him at another time and location.

48. On or about April 19, 2016, Investigator Smith summoned Ms. Ullery to the

administrative offices at DWCF. Defendants shift commander Captain Ramona Avant, Associate

Warden Jaques and another representative from the Office of the Inspector General (collectively,

the “Investigators”) were also present at this meeting.

49. Ms. Ullery told the Investigators that her complaint was related to Defendant

Bradley; they responded by saying something to the effect of “they had assumed as much.” The

Investigators stated that DOC had received numerous complaints about Defendant Bradley

sexually harassing or assaulting inmates over the ten years that Defendant Bradley had worked at

DOC, but every time an investigation was launched, “it became a he said/she said situation.”

9
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 31

They said that DOC thus had no proof that Defendant Bradley was engaged in the misconduct of

which he was suspected.

50. The Investigators made clear to Ms. Ullery that they knew that Defendant Bradley

had sexually harassed other inmates, but they wanted hard evidence of his misconduct. The

Investigators asked Ms. Ullery if she could prove her allegations of sexual harassment against

Defendant Bradley. Ms. Ullery offered to provide personal, sexual information about Defendant

Bradley that she was aware of through his previous harassment. For instance, she offered to

provide information about the type of sex toy that Bradley had given his wife.

51. The Investigators believed that it would be too “awkward” to confirm the personal

information that Ms. Ullery offered. Instead, they asked Ms. Ullery to wear a “wire” (a covert

audio recording and transmission device) and to record an act of misconduct by Defendant

Bradley.

52. At this point, Ms. Ullery had already been approved for parole and had only three

months’ imprisonment left. Ms. Ullery told the Investigators that she did not want to assist them

because it would subject her to danger both from Defendant Bradley—who had already

threatened her with the loss of her parole—and from other inmates if word got out that she wore

a wire for DOC.

53. The Investigators continued to press the issue. They attempted to convince Ms.

Ullery to wear a wire by comparing her situation to that of a McDonald’s worker. If Ms. Ullery

worked at McDonald’s, the Investigators reasoned, she would file a complaint if her superior

sexually harassed her; however, this case was even worse because Defendant Bradley was a

peace officer. The Investigators told Ms. Ullery that by agreeing to the “wire operation,” she

would be saving countless other women from Defendant Bradley’s abuse and harassment.

10
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 31

54. Ms. Ullery replied that she was still nervous about the potential consequences of

wearing a wire to assist in the investigation. She feared that she might be sent to solitary

confinement, that she might be branded as a “snitch,” or that she could lose her parole date.

55. The Investigators assured Ms. Ullery that they would remove her from any

situation in which she was targeted because of her cooperation with their investigation. They also

guaranteed Ms. Ullery that they would protect her from Defendant Bradley. They told her that

they would be monitoring the audio transmission from the wire and before anything in the nature

of a sexual assault could occur, officers would interfere. They then told her that they would

escort Defendant Bradley off the property immediately after the operation.

56. Ms. Ullery ultimately agreed to wear a wire because the Investigators had

guaranteed her safety and because she felt intimidated and threatened by the Investigators. She

was afraid that if she refused, her parole date would be jeopardized.

57. The Investigators decided that Ms. Ullery should not return to work, and instead

placed her in DWCF’s medical division for one or two days to prepare her for the wire operation.

58. On or about April 20, 2016, Investigator Smith briefed Defendant Chief

Investigator Danny Lake about Ms. Ullery’s complaint against Defendant Bradley and about the

planned wire operation. Upon information and belief, Chief Investigator Lake approved the

operation. He advised Investigator Smith about what type of device they would need to use so

the wire was capable of transmitting Ms. Ullery’s interactions with Defendant Bradley, rather

than simply recording them, and the interactions could be monitored.

11
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 31

After Ms. Ullery approached Defendant Bradley while wearing the wire, DOC officials did not
intervene until after Defendant Bradley sexually assaulted her.

59. On or around April 21, 2016, Ms. Ullery was fitted with a wire to attempt the wire

operation. However, Defendant Bradley was not at work that day, and the Investigators delayed

the operation until the following week.

60. On or around April 26, 2016, Ms. Ullery was again fitted with a wire. Captain

Avant assisted Ms. Ullery to devise a cover to avoid the metal detector so that the wire would not

be discovered by security.

61. Ms. Ullery returned to her normal duties on the dock with the wire active; in

theory, the Investigators should have been able to hear the wire’s audio transmission in real time.

62. Sergeant Hall, who was responsible for escorting prisoners through the facility,

told Ms. Ullery that he knew something was going on, and CO Urich said that he had heard that

Ms. Ullery had talked to Captain Avant.

63. Shortly after Ms. Ullery arrived at work, Defendant Bradley paged her to report to

his office. When she arrived, Defendant Bradley was seated at his desk, and she sat down in front

of it.

64. Defendant Bradley immediately started to harass Ms. Ullery by demanding that

she show him her breasts. Despite this obvious instance of sexual harassment, none of the

Investigators or their agents entered the office to protect Ms. Ullery or remove Defendant

Bradley, as they had promised Ms. Ullery.

65. Defendant Bradley then began to chide Ms. Ullery for her reluctance to

masturbate in front of him. Again, none of the Investigators or their agents came to Ms. Ullery’s

aid in response.

12
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 31

66. Still believing that the Investigators would intervene and end the encounter with

Defendant Bradley at any second, Ms. Ullery responded by asking Defendant Bradley “what was

wrong with [him].”

67. Defendant Bradley became visibly angry with Ms. Ullery. He stood up, came

around the desk, backed her into a wall, forcefully thrust his hand between her legs, and started

groping her crotch.

68. Ms. Ullery expected officers to at least enter the office at this point, after the

assurances they had provided. Instead, they left her alone with Defendant Bradley for

approximately three minutes after he had begun to assault her.

69. Finally, after Defendant Bradley sexually harassed and assaulted her, Sergeant

Hall entered the office and removed Ms. Ullery.

70. Sergeant Hall delivered Ms. Ullery to Captain Avant; Captain Avant took Ms.

Ullery into a bathroom and assisted her in removing the wire.

71. After the wire had been removed, Captain Avant escorted Ms. Ullery to the Shift

Commander’s Office, where she met with several of the Investigators. Ms. Ullery asked the

Investigators why it took them so long to pull her out of Defendant Bradley’s office, and they

replied that the device was not transmitting well initially. Ms. Ullery then asked if the

Investigators had gotten what they needed, and they indicated that her interaction with Defendant

Bradley had been recorded and that they would protect her from any repercussions. Captain

Avant stated that she would check on Ms. Ullery later.

72. In fact, as Investigator Smith later reported, the connection between the wire

transmitting device and the listening device that the Investigators were using failed repeatedly,

and Investigator Smith was unable to hear Ms. Ullery or anyone else throughout most of the wire

13
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 31

operation. Despite his clear inability to protect Ms. Ullery as he had promised, Investigator

Smith allowed the operation to continue.

73. Ms. Ullery never saw Captain Avant again after the wire operation concluded.

Other than removing her from her job with Canteen Services because Investigator Smith did not

want her to work with Defendant Bradley’s subordinates, no one from DOC followed up in any

way. No one spoke to her about the incident or Defendant Bradley’s repeated sexual harassment

and assault, and DOC did not provide her with any counseling.

74. To this day, no one from DOC has ever informed Ms. Ullery about the result of

her efforts.

DOC did not protect Ms. Ullery from retaliation by other inmates for her assistance in the wire
operation, even though both Ms. Ullery and her mother repeatedly complained about threats
of physical violence, including death threats, made against her.

75. The following day, Defendant Bradley was no longer on site. He was placed on

paid administrative leave on April 27, 2016; he resigned from CDOC in lieu of firing on May 31,

2016.

76. Despite the Investigators’ repeated assurances that Ms. Ullery would be protected

from any repercussions for her assistance, word quickly spread through the DWCF rumor mill

that Ms. Ullery had worn a wire and caused Defendant Bradley to lose his job.

77. Defendant Bradley had been popular among some of the inmates at DWCF

because he was willing to bend or ignore rules for them. The inmates who liked Defendant

Bradley confronted Ms. Ullery and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. Some even

made death threats against her.

78. For instance, in May of 2016, OIG Investigator Gary Valko reviewed a separate

allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct between Ms. Ullery and another official at DWCF.

14
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 31

Investigator Valko concluded that, “[I]t appears reasonable that these allegation [sic] may have

been an attempt by one or more inmates to retaliate against inmate Ullery for reporting the

misconduct by Canteen Warehouse Manager Bruce Bradley and inmate Ullery.”

79. Ms. Ullery was forced to stop leaving her unit because she feared that she would

be killed. She also stopped sleeping out of fear she would be attacked in her sleep. When she

could sleep, Ms. Ullery suffered horrific night terrors.

80. Ms. Ullery could not eat because she could not go to the food hall without inmates

threatening her with physical harm. Eventually, Ms. Ullery had no option but to request to be

sent to solitary confinement so that she could eat.

81. Ms. Ullery sent out dozens of written requests (“kites”) pleading for help. Ms.

Ullery’s mother even called DOC and begged officials to protect her daughter, or to transfer her.

Neither the Investigators nor anyone else ever addressed Ms. Ullery’s concerns.

82. For 90 days until she was released on parole, Ms. Ullery lived in constant fear that

at any moment she would be killed or assaulted.

Because of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Ullery continues to suffer emotional harm.

83. Although Ms. Ullery was released from DWCF on June 24, 2016, the emotional

trauma resulting from Defendants’ conduct continues.

84. Ms. Ullery still has flashbacks of Defendant Bradley’s sexual assault. She

continues to suffer from nightmares and night terrors related to his conduct. She needs to

regularly take Prazosin, a prescription medication for anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder,

to combat her night terrors.

15
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 31

85. When her flashbacks are really bad, Ms. Ullery closes herself off from everyone,

even those to whom she is closest, for days at a time. She feels humiliated and disgusted with

herself.

86. The trauma inflicted on her by Defendant Bradley has also impacted Ms. Ullery’s

relationship with her fiancé. Ms. Ullery sometimes feels disgusted when her fiancé touches her, a

problem that she had never encountered before she was sexually assaulted by Defendant Bradley.

87. Ms. Ullery’s younger sister, who is incarcerated, is continually bullied by other

inmates because of Ms. Ullery’s participation in the wire operation. Other inmates transmit

hateful messages to Ms. Ullery by giving them to her sister to pass along to her.

88. Ms. Ullery feels like she is never going to be able to heal from the pain inflicted

on her by Defendant Bradley and the other Defendants.

Guards at DWCF, including Defendant Bradley, have a history of sexual harassment and
assault of female inmates.

89. In 2009, an inmate at DWCF, “A.H.,” was awarded $1.3 million by the court

against a former DWCF guard who had repeatedly coerced her into performing sexual acts and

then raped her. The same guard had previously engaged in sexual misconduct with other female

inmates, a fact well known to prison officials.

90. Prison officials, including the Office of the Associate Warden of DWCF, the

Office of the Warden of DWCF, and the Office of the Executive Director of the Colorado

Department of Corrections, also had known of ongoing and pervasive sexual misconduct and

abuse perpetrated by DOC prison officials against inmates housed at DWCF through receipt of

letters, grievances, kites, formal complaints, and civil suits filed by DWCF inmates regarding

widespread sexual abuse of inmates by prison officials.

16
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 31

91. As part of a 2009 settlement between A.H. and DOC officials, DOC agreed to

conduct supplemental annual training under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), focused

on preventing DOC employee-on-inmate sexual contact. DOC also agreed to uphold a “zero-

tolerance” policy consistent with PREA regarding DOC employee-on-inmate sexual contact,

including mandating that DOC employees report any information regarding DOC employee-on-

inmate sexual contact, with failure to do so resulting in discipline.

92. Yet in 2011 and 2012, DWCF had the highest rate in the country of alleged

sexual assault or misconduct by correctional facility staff members against inmates, with an

estimated 10.7% of inmates claiming they were victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct

by staff members. This rate was 4 times the national average. Of all DWCF inmates subjected to

sexual misconduct by staff, 7.3% reported they had been physically coerced or threatened with

physical force, 10 times higher than the national average.

93. Thus, despite its professed “zero-tolerance” policy in 2009, DWCF officials and

supervisors subsequently failed to institute appropriate measures to protect inmates, including

Ms. Ullery, from the known risk of sexual misconduct and assault by guards.

94. Moreover, for ten years prior to Defendant Bradley’s assault of Ms. Ullery, DOC

officials had received numerous complaints about Defendant Bradley sexually harassing or

assaulting inmates, but upon information and belief, DOC officials took no significant action in

response to these complaints. DOC officials, including Defendants Raemisch, Johnson, and

Jaques (“Supervisory Defendants”), therefore knew that Ms. Ullery and other inmates faced an

obvious risk of sexual assault by Defendant Bradley.

95. Supervisory Defendants failed to provide Ms. Ullery and other inmates humane

conditions of confinement by knowingly, voluntarily, recklessly and with willful disregard to the

17
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 31

inmates’ personal safety allowing Defendant Bradley to continue to personally supervise female

inmates at DWCF.

96. Furthermore, Supervisory Defendants knowingly, recklessly and intentionally

disregarded and continue to disregard obvious serious risks to Ms. Ullery and other inmates

posed by widespread and pervasive sexual abuse of inmates at DWCF in the following ways:

a. failing to take timely substantive remedial actions to address the known,

ongoing, pervasive problem of sexual abuse by Defendant Bradley and

other prison staff against DWCF inmates;

b. failing to properly hire, train, and/or supervise prison personnel, including

Defendant Bradley and Defendants Wang and Urich, to prevent and/or

address known pervasive sexual abuse of DWCF inmates by Defendant

Bradley and other prison staff, despite the obvious need to do so;

c. continuing to employ DWCF prison staff, including Defendant Bradley, in

positions that allow them unsupervised access to female inmates, in spite of

Supervisory Defendants’ knowledge that these officials were and/or are

sexual predators; and

d. failing to maintain a proper video surveillance system in all locations where

inmates have contact with guards, including the loading docks and Canteen

Services’ supervisors’ office.

97. This conduct amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the inmates

housed at DWCF, including Ms. Ullery, and was so grossly reckless that the sexual misconduct

against Ms. Ullery by Defendant Bradley was virtually inevitable.

18
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 31

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive Force
(Against Defendants Bradley, Raemisch, Johnson, and Jaques)

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

forth herein.

99. Defendants Raemisch, Johnson, and Jaques (“Supervisory Defendants”) and

Defendant Bradley were acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.

100. Defendant Bradley purposefully and knowingly used physical force against Ms.

Ullery by touching her breasts, pressing his groin against her, and forcibly grabbing and fondling

her crotch without her consent.

101. Defendant Bradley’s use of force against Ms. Ullery caused her unnecessary and

wanton pain.

102. Defendant Bradley’s use of force against Ms. Ullery had no legitimate

penological purpose.

103. The force used by Defendant Bradley against Ms. Ullery thus was used

maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.

104. In light of the Supervisory Defendants’ knowledge of previous complaints against

Defendant Bradley for sexual misconduct against inmates, the need for additional and effective

training, supervision, and discipline of Defendant Bradley regarding sexual acts with inmates

was obvious.

105. The Supervisory Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the substantial

risk of harm to Ms. Ullery, and other inmates housed at DWCF, by continuing to employ

Defendant Bradley at DWCF in a position where he could sexually harass/assault inmates like

19
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 31

Ms. Ullery despite the multiple inmate complaints against him for sexual abuse and thus the

known and obvious risk of substantial harm Defendant Bradley posed to inmates, including Ms.

Ullery.

106. Moreover, for years before Ms. Ullery’s assault, Supervisory Defendants knew of

and failed to take reasonable measures to abate the substantial risk of serious harm to inmates

posed by widespread sexual abuse by DWCF prison staff against inmates.

107. It would have been obvious to those in Supervisory Defendants’ positions that

inmates at DWCF, including Ms. Ullery, faced a substantial risk of serious harm from sexual

abuse by staff.

108. Supervisory Defendants failed to provide humane conditions of confinement for

Ms. Ullery and other similarly situated inmates by failing to implement practices, policies and

procedures that protected inmates, including Ms. Ullery, from the substantial risk of serious harm

posed by prison staff using their positions to sexually harass and assault inmates.

109. The Supervisory Defendants, by and through their official duties within DOC,

failed to properly train, supervise, and/or discipline their employees, including Defendant

Bradley, CO Urich, and CO Wang, regarding sexual assault and harassment of inmates resulting

in inhumane conditions of confinement.

110. In light of the post-2009 history of widespread and persistent sexual abuse by

DWCF staff against inmates, the need for additional and effective training, supervision, and

discipline of guards regarding sexual acts with inmates was obvious.

111. Supervisory Defendants thus knew that their acts or omissions were substantially

certain to cause DWCF officials, and/or Defendant Bradley in particular, to violate the

constitutional rights of inmates like Ms. Ullery to be free from excessive force in the form of

20
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 31

sexual abuse, and Supervisory Defendants consciously or deliberately chose to disregard this risk

of harm in failing to provide and/or in deliberately choosing not to provide additional effective

training, supervision, and discipline of guards and/or Defendant Bradley regarding sexual acts

with inmates.

112. Therefore, Supervisory Defendants set in motion a series of events that they

knew would cause an inmate in a similar situation as Ms. Ullery to be deprived of her

constitutional right to be free from excessive force; but for the above acts or omissions of

Supervisory Defendants, Ms. Ullery would not have been subjected to a violation of her

constitutional rights; and such a deprivation was a natural and foreseeable consequence of these

acts and omissions.

113. Supervisory Defendants’ failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline their

employees, including Defendant Bradley, was the proximate cause of the violation of Ms.

Ullery’s constitutional rights.

114. Defendant Bradley’s and the Supervisory Defendants’ actions and inactions were

taken in reckless and callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Ullery.

115. The acts or omissions of Defendant Bradley and Supervisory Defendants were the

legal and proximate cause of Ms. Ullery’s damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into

bodily privacy and integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish, and

continues to suffer mental and emotional pain and anguish to this day and likely for the rest of

her life.

116. As a direct and proximate cause and consequence of the unconstitutional policies,

procedures, customs, acts, inactions, and/or practices described above, Ms. Ullery suffered and

continues to suffer injuries, damages and losses as set forth herein.

21
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 31

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment – Substantive Due Process
Invasion of Bodily Integrity
(Against Defendants Bradley, Raemisch, Johnson, and Jaques)

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

forth herein.

118. Defendants Bradley, Raemisch, Johnson, and Jaques were acting under color of

state law at all times relevant to this action.

119. By sexually harassing and assaulting Ms. Ullery without her consent, Defendant

Bradley violated Ms. Ullery’s right to be secure in her bodily integrity, a liberty interest

protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

120. Defendants Raemisch, Johnson, and Jaques recklessly, with conscious disregard

to the serious and obvious risk to the safety of inmates like Ms. Ullery, violated Ms. Ullery’s

right to be secure in her bodily integrity by allowing pervasive sexual abuse by prison personnel

against inmates to continue in the following ways:

a. by employing Defendant Bradley in a position that allowed him

unsupervised access to female inmates, with, and in spite of, the knowledge

that Defendant Bradley posed a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates

like Ms. Ullery;

b. by failing to take effective remedial actions to address the known, ongoing,

pervasive problem of sexual abuse by prison personnel against inmates;

c. by failing to properly train, and/or supervise prison personnel to prevent

and/or address pervasive sexual assault by Defendant Bradley and other

prison personnel against inmates at DWCF; and

22
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 31

d. failing to maintain a proper video surveillance system in all locations where

inmates had contact with guards.

121. Supervisory Defendants, by and through their official duties within DOC, failed

to properly and effectively train, supervise, and/or discipline their employees, including

Defendant Bradley, regarding sexual abuse of inmates, resulting in an unconstitutional invasion

of Ms. Ullery’s bodily integrity and a deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious

harm to Ms. Ullery and other similarly situated inmates.

122. Supervisory Defendants knew that their acts or omissions were substantially

certain to cause DWCF officials to violate constitutional rights of inmates like Ms. Ullery to be

free from secure in their bodily integrity, and Supervisory Defendants consciously or deliberately

chose to disregard this risk of harm in failing to provide and/or in deliberately choosing not to

provide additional effective training, supervision, and discipline of guards, and/or Defendant

Bradley, regarding sexual acts with inmates.

123. In light of the duties and responsibilities of DOC personnel who exercise control

over individuals incarcerated at DWCF, and the post-2009 history of sexual abuse by guards

against inmates, the need for training, supervision and discipline regarding sexual acts with

inmates was so obvious, and the inadequacy of appropriate hiring, training, and/or supervision

was so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, such as those described herein, that

Supervisory Defendants’ failure to appropriately train and/or supervise DOC personnel like

Defendant Bradley and his direct supervisors constituted deliberate indifference to the rights of

inmates like Ms. Ullery to be secure in their bodily integrity.

124. The Supervisory Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the substantial

and obvious risk of harm to Ms. Ullery, and other inmates housed at DWCF, by continuing to

23
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 31

employ Defendant Bradley at DWCF in a position where he could sexually harass/assault

inmates like Ms. Ullery despite the multiple inmate complaints against him for sexual abuse and

thus the known and obvious risk of substantial harm Defendant Bradley posed to inmates,

including Ms. Ullery.

125. Supervisory Defendants, by and through their official duties within DOC,

proximately caused an unconstitutional invasion of Ms. Ullery’s bodily integrity by failing to

implement effective practices, policies, and procedures that would have protected inmates,

including Ms. Ullery, from the substantial and known risk of serious harm posed by Defendant

Bradley and other prison personnel using (and abusing) their authority and influence to sexually

abuse inmates.

126. Supervisory Defendants set in motion a series of events that they knew would

cause an inmate in a similar situation as Ms. Ullery to be deprived of her constitutional right to

be secure in her bodily integrity; but for the above acts or omissions of Supervisory Defendants,

Ms. Ullery would not have been subjected to a violation of her constitutional rights; and such a

deprivation was a natural and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions.

127. Such policies, as well as Defendants’ actions and inactions violated Ms. Ullery’s

substantive due process right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

128. Defendant Bradley’s and the Supervisory Defendants’ actions and inactions were

taken in reckless and callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Ullery.

129. When viewed in total, this conduct is outrageous and shocks the conscience.

Among other things, despite Supervisory Defendants’ knowledge of continuing and pervasive

sexual assault by guards against inmates at DWCF since the 2009 rape of A.H., Supervisory

24
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 31

Defendants failed to take appropriate actions to protect inmates like Ms. Ullery, even knowing

the severe harm that befell A.H. from the same failures years before.

130. The acts or omissions of Defendant Bradley and Supervisory Defendants were the

legal and proximate cause of Ms. Ullery’s damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into

bodily privacy and integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish, and

continues to suffer mental and emotional pain and anguish to this day and likely for the rest of

her life.

131. As a direct and proximate cause and consequence of the unconstitutional policies,

procedures, customs, and/or practices described above, Ms. Ullery suffered and continues to

suffer injuries, damages and losses as set forth herein.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment – Substantive Due Process
State Created Danger
(Against Defendants Jaques, Smith, Avant, and Lake)

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

forth herein.

133. Defendants Jaques, Smith, Avant, and Lake were acting under color of state law

at all times relevant to this action.

134. By taking Ms. Ullery into custody, and thereby assuming control over her and

depriving her of her liberty to care for herself, Defendants created a special relationship with Ms.

Ullery that required them to assume an affirmative duty of care and protection with respect to

Ms. Ullery.

135. By using her as bait in the wire operation, Defendants Jaques, Smith, Avant, and

Lake (“Wire Operation Defendants”) created the danger that caused Ms. Ullery to be sexually

assaulted—Defendant Bradley forcibly groping her crotch for several minutes.

25
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 31

136. The Wire Operation Defendants’ conduct put Ms. Ullery at substantial risk of

serious, immediate, and proximate harm of sexual assault by telling her to engage Defendant

Bradley so that he would commit an act of sexual misconduct they could record.

137. The Wire Operation Defendants further put Ms. Ullery at substantial risk of

serious, immediate, and proximate harm by telling her they would protect her from Defendant

Bradley but failing to intervene once it became clear the wire recording device was not

transmitting clearly and/or after hearing audio indications that Defendant Bradley was sexually

harassing and/or assaulting Ms. Ullery.

138. Ms. Ullery was a member of a limited group of individuals put by the Wire

Operation Defendants at serious risk of sexual assault by Defendant Bradley.

139. The substantial risk of harm to Ms. Ullery from being sexually assaulted by

Defendant Bradley during the wire operation was obvious and known to the Wire Operation

Defendants.

140. By proceeding with the wire operation despite the complaints from Ms. Ullery

and other inmates regarding Defendant Bradley’s sexual misconduct towards them—and

informing Ms. Ullery they needed to record an instance of such sexual misconduct—the Wire

Operation Defendants acted recklessly in conscious disregard of the known, obvious, and

substantial risk that Defendant Bradley would sexually assault Ms. Ullery during the wire

operation and thereby cause her serious harm.

141. The Wire Operation Defendants’ conscious choice to proceed with the wire

operation once it became clear that they could not clearly hear Ms. Ullery’s interaction with

Defendant Bradley and/or once they heard indications Defendant Bradley was or likely was

about to sexually assault Ms. Ullery was also reckless and in conscious disregard of the known,

26
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 31

obvious, and substantial risk that Defendant Bradley would sexually assault Ms. Ullery before

the Wire Operation Defendants or their agents intervened.

142. When viewed in total, the Wire Operation Defendants’ conduct is outrageous and

shocks the conscience.

143. The Wire Operation Defendants’ actions and inactions violated Ms. Ullery’s

substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

144. The Wire Operation Defendants’ actions and inactions were taken in reckless and

callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Ullery.

145. The acts and/or omissions of each Wire Operation Defendant were the legal and

proximate cause of Ms. Ullery’s damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily

privacy and integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish, and continues to

suffer mental and emotional pain and anguish to this day and likely for the rest of her life.

146. As a direct and proximate cause and consequence of the unconstitutional acts

described above, Ms. Ullery suffered and continues to suffer injuries, damages and losses as set

forth herein.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Retaliation
(Against Defendants Jaques, Smith, Avant, and Lake)

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

forth herein.

148. Defendants Jaques, Smith, Avant, and Lake (“Wire Operation Defendants”) were

acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this action.

27
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 31

149. Ms. Ullery engaged in the protected activity of petitioning the government and

engaging in free speech by complaining to Investigator Smith about Defendant Bradley’s sexual

misconduct against her.

150. The Wire Operation Defendants were aware that Ms. Ullery engaged in this

protected activity.

151. In response to Ms. Ullery’s complaints, the Wire Operation Defendants used her

as bait in the wire operation, directly placing her in harm’s way from the same individual about

whom she had complained.

152. The Wire Operation Defendants’ actions would have chilled a person of ordinary

firmness from continuing to engage in protected speech, including bringing her complaints to

prison authorities or the court, and reporting crimes to police.

153. But for Ms. Ullery’s protected speech, the Wire Operation Defendants would not

have placed Ms. Ullery in substantial danger of being sexually assaulted by Defendant Bradley

through the wire operation, and Ms. Ullery’s protected speech was a motivating and substantial

factor in placing Ms. Ullery in such danger.

154. The Wire Operation Defendants acted with malice and reckless indifference to

Ms. Ullery’s First Amendment rights.

155. As a result of the Wire Operation Defendants’ actions, Ms. Ullery suffered a

violation of her First Amendment rights, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and

anguish.

156. The acts and/or omissions of each Wire Operation Defendant were the legal and

proximate cause of Ms. Ullery’s damages in that she suffered physical intrusion into bodily

28
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 31

privacy and integrity, humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish, and continues to

suffer mental and emotional pain and anguish to this day and likely for the rest of her life.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

U.S.C. § 1983 – Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Failure to Protect
(Against Defendants Urich And Wang)

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

forth herein.

158. Defendants Urich and Wang were acting under color of state law in their actions

and inactions at all times relevant to this action.

159. Under the Eighth Amendment, Defendants Urich and Wang had a duty to protect

Ms. Ullery, as a prisoner in custody of DWCF, from harm at the hands of other DWCF guards or

employees.

160. Based on complaints by Ms. Ullery and other facts and circumstances, Defendants

Urich and Wang knew that Defendant Bradley presented an excessive risk to Ms. Ullery’s safety.

161. Despite their knowledge that Defendant Bradley presented an excessive risk to

Ms. Ullery’s safety, Defendants Urich and Wang made a conscious and deliberate decision not to

take any action to protect Ms. Ullery from sexual misconduct by Defendant Bradley.

162. Defendants Urich’s and Wang’s conscious and deliberate decisions not to take

any action to protect Ms. Ullery from sexual misconduct by Defendant Bradley put Ms. Ullery at

substantial risk of suffering serious harm.

163. Defendants Urich’s and Wang’s conscious and deliberate decisions not to protect

Ms. Ullery, despite knowledge of the risk to her safety from Defendant Bradley, constitute

deliberate indifference to and willful and wanton disregard of the substantial risk of serious harm

to Ms. Ullery, thereby depriving Ms. Ullery of life’s necessities and failing to provide her

29
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 31

humane conditions of confinement, in violation of Ms. Ullery’s Eighth Amendment right to be

free from cruel and unusual punishment.

164. By consciously and deliberately failing to take any action to protect Ms. Ullery

from the known and substantial risk of serious harm posed by Defendant Bradley, Defendants

Urich and Wang knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously disregarded the obvious

serious risks of bodily injury to Ms. Ullery, failed to provide humane conditions of confinement,

deprived Ms. Ullery of life’s necessities, and violated Ms. Ullery’s Eighth Amendment right to

be free from cruel and unusual punishment, resulting in substantial harm to Ms. Ullery.

165. The acts and omissions of Defendant Wang’s and Urich’s were engaged in

pursuant to the custom, policy, and practice of DWCF.

166. Defendants Wang’s and Urich’s actions and inactions were taken in reckless and

callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Ullery.

167. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Urich and Wang were the legal and

proximate cause of Ms. Ullery’s damages in that as a result of Defendants Urich’s and Wang’s

failure to protect Ms. Ullery, she suffered physical intrusion into bodily privacy and integrity,

humiliation, and mental and emotional pain and anguish, and continues to suffer mental and

emotional pain and anguish to this day and likely for the rest of her life.

168. As a direct and proximate cause and consequence of the unconstitutional acts

described above, Ms. Ullery suffered and continues to suffer injuries, damages and losses as set

forth herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her

favor and against Defendants, and grant:

(a) Appropriate declaratory and other injunctive and/or equitable relief;

30
Case 1:18-cv-00839-STV Document 22 Filed 07/06/18 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 31

(b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional

distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all

claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;

(c) All economic losses on all claims allowed by law;

(d) Punitive damages on all claims allowed by law and in an amount to be

determined at trial;

(e) Attorney fees and the costs associated with this action on all claims allowed by

law;

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

(g) Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other relief as

allowed by law and equity.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A TRIAL TO A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Dated this 6th day of July 2018.

_s/_David A. Lane___________________
David A. Lane
Liana Orshan
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 571-1000
[email protected]
[email protected]

Iris Eytan
EYTAN NIELSEN LLC
3200 Cherry Creek South Drive, Ste. 720
Denver, CO 80209
(720) 440-8155
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

31