Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-19-2025
Case Style:
Case Number: 23-CV-3054
Judge: CNS
Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Andrew C. Steers
Description: Denver, Colorado, personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories.
Mr. Luethje sued Mr. Kyle and Mr. Kelly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims under the Fourth Amendment for (1) unlawful entry and search of his home, (2) unlawful arrest, and (3) unlawful use of excessive force. He also brought a failure to intervene claim against Mr. Kelly. The deputies moved to dismiss, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on each claim.
Travis Kyle and Scott Kelly’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Tyler Luethje’s § 1983 complaint based on qualified immunity. Mr. Kyle is a canine handler employed by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, while Mr. Kelly is a Sheriff’s Deputy employed by the same office. Mr. Luethje’s complaint alleges that on the evening of February 11, 2022, he was lying in bed at home when a police canine named Sig burst through his bedroom door and latched onto his left arm. Mr. Kyle and Mr. Kelly (“the deputies”) were responding to a 911 call reporting that an unidentified male had approached Mr. Luethje’s residence, broken the front window, and fled. The deputies, upon reaching the house and seeing the broken window, pushed Sig into the residence to bite the first person he encountered. After Sig found and latched onto
Mr. Luethje, the deputies entered his bedroom and questioned him for over one minute while Sig continued to bite his arm. The deputies then called Sig off, ordered Mr. Luethje out of bed, handcuffed him, and placed him under arrest. Paramedics
arrived and transported Mr. Luethje to the hospital, where he was treated for several lacerations and puncture wounds. Mr. Luethje was not charged with any crime.
Outcome: The district court disagreed, holding that for each claim, the deputies had violated Mr. Luethje’s constitutional rights and that the law establishing those rights was clearly established.
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: