Halik v. Pinnock
| Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-02456-RM-MDB |
| Parties | BRIAN HALIK, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT PINNOCK, Former Officer, University of Colorado Colorado Springs Police Department, individually and in his official capacity, LISA DIPZINSKI, Police Sergeant, University of Colorado Colorado Springs Police Department, individually and in her official capacity, and CHARLES LITCHFIELD, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on two Motions: (1) “Defendant Charles Litchfield's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6);” and (2) “Defendants Robert Pinnock and Lisa Dipzinski's Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).” ([“Litchfield Motion”], Doc. No. 13; [“Pinnock/Dipzinski Motion”], Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff has responded in opposition to both Motions, and Defendants have replied. (Doc. Nos. 17-18, 20-21.) The Motions have been referred to the undersigned, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1, for a recommendation regarding disposition. (Doc. No. 15-16.). The Court has reviewed the briefs, the case file, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Litchfield Motion (Doc. No. 13) be GRANTED, and that the Pinnock/Dipzinski Motion (Doc. No. 14) be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
Pro se Plaintiff Brian Halik [“Mr. Halik,” or “Plaintiff”], a disabled veteran and former student at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs [“UCCS”], brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his federal constitutional rights by the UCCS Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance, Charles Litchfield [“Defendant Litchfield”], as well as two UCCS campus police officers-Robert Pinnock [“Defendant Pinnock”] and Lisa Dipzinski [“Defendant Dipzinski”]. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 1-3, 4-8, 11.)
According to the Complaint, on September 10, 2019, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Mr. Halik, who at the time was an active UCCS student, arrived at a social event on the school's campus, accompanied by his service dog, “a highly trained German Shepherd.” (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.) Within minutes of Mr. Halik's arrival, Defendant Pinnock was dispatched to the scene, apparently in response to a complaint that the German Shepherd was off leash. (Id. at ¶ 13.) At approximately 7:20 p.m., Defendant Pinnock arrived and approached Mr. Halik regarding his dog. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Mr. Halik alleges that, even though he “politely requested” that Defendant Pinnock discuss the matter with him privately, Defendant Pinnock “refused” to do so, and instead “demanded that the conversation remain in front of other students.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff complains that Defendant Pinnock proceeded to threaten him with arrest unless he immediately showed his identification. (Id.) When Plaintiff then “proclaim[ed] [his] right to not provide his identification” on the grounds that he “was not suspected of committing any crime,” Defendant Pinnock allegedly “handcuffed Plaintiff with [his] hands behind [his] back, took Plaintiff into custody, separated Plaintiff from [his] service animal, and paraded Plaintiff handcuffed in front of countless other students.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Mr. Halik laments that his “body” and “belongings” were then searched “multiple times.” (Id.) Plaintiff reports that, during the course of these events, Defendant Pinnock made clear to him that he had not committed any crime, reassuring Plaintiff that he was only being detained for not providing identification. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
According to the Complaint, Defendant Pinnock was eventually able to confirm Mr. Halik's identity by way of his driver's license, which Defendant Pinnock seized from Mr. Halik's pants pocket. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Meanwhile, around that same time, a second UCCS police officer, Defendant Dipzinski, apparently responded to the scene as well. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
Mr. Halik alleges that, notwithstanding Defendant Dipzinski's arrival, the two officers continued to “unlawfully” detain him, refusing to remove the handcuffs from his wrists “until long after” his identification had been verified. (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 20-21.) Plaintiff further alleges that, during that time, the two officers intentionally deactivated their body worn cameras, so as to “cover up” their “illegal or unconstitutional activities.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) He complains that, at one point, the handcuffs improperly “self-tightened” around his wrists, due to the fact that Defendant Pinnock failed to “double lock” them. (Id. at ¶ 22 & n.3.) Plaintiff alleges that the malfunctioning of the handcuffs caused him to suffer “temporary pain and numbness.” (Id.) Mr. Halik stresses that, throughout the entirety of his encounter with Defendants Dipzinski and Pinnock, neither individual “could provide [a] specific policy or law that mandated that officers could arbitrarily detain or arrest students if they did not provide identification.” (Id. at ¶ 16.)
According to the Complaint, Mr. Halik was eventually released from police custody without charge. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Mr. Halik reports that, ultimately, he was not found to be in violation of any laws or policies arising from the September 10, 2019 incident. (Id.) However, Plaintiff complains that, notwithstanding that fact, Defendant Dipzinski subsequently contacted “numerous UCCS officials” regarding the incident, falsely asserting that Plaintiff had “violated UCCS policy” and “broken the law.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dipzinski did so “in an attempt to cover up her actions as well as those of Defendant Pinnock.” (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that both officers intentionally lied in their respective police reports regarding the September 10, 2019 incident, so as to “cover up their misconduct” and “retroactively justify [their] unlawful detainment of Plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19, 25.)
Meanwhile, within hours of his release, Mr. Halik sent an email to the UCCS Dean of Students, which purportedly set forth a complaint narrative of the September 10, 2019 incident, including allegations of misconduct by Defendants Dipzinski and Pinnock. (Id. at ¶ 26.) After then meeting with UCCS investigators to discuss the allegations made in his email, on October 14, 2019, Mr. Halik met with a UCCS Vice Chancellor, Defendant Litchfield, who “reluctantly agreed to open an investigation” into the officers' actions. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 28.) Defendant Litchfield allegedly assured Mr. Halik that he would personally reach out to him upon completion of the investigation. (Id. at ¶ 28 n.5.) However, Mr. Halik laments that, to date, he has not received any notification that the investigation has concluded. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Mr. Halik likewise laments that, to date, no disciplinary action has been taken against either Defendant Dipzinski or Defendant Pinnock. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Litchfield has, in fact, “actively obstructed” the investigation so as “to protect” the two officers. (Id.) He likewise alleges that Defendant Litchfield “maintains a policy” that allows the UCCS campus police to use “broad and overly vague” provisions of the UCCS Student Code of Conduct as a pretextual justification to “violate the constitutional rights of students and members of the public.” (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.)
According to the Complaint, shortly after the September 10, 2019 incident, Mr. Halik temporarily withdrew from UCCS, “due to overwhelming anxiety and feeling unsafe on the UCCS campus.” (Id. at ¶ 27.) Mr. Halik reports that, since that time, he has not resumed his studies there or elsewhere, causing a “significant setback” to his educational aspirations. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Plaintiff complains that, due to the extended lapse in his enrollment, the Department of Veterans Affairs has since rescinded his authorization to attend school. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff reports that, due to emotional trauma arising from the September 10, 2019 incident, his German Shepherd remains unable to return to service work, despite veterinary intervention and training. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that this chain of events has “significantly impacted” his physical and mental wellbeing. (Id.)
Based on these allegations, on September 10, 2021, Mr. Halik commenced this federal civil rights action against the above-named Defendants, in their individual and official capacities, asserting violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary damages, as well as unspecified declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. (Id. at ¶ 1.)
On January 11, 2022, Defendant Litchfield responded to Plaintiff's allegations by filing a motion to dismiss the claims against him, in their entirety, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 13.) Specifically, Defendant Litchfield moves to dismiss the official capacity claims seeking monetary damages and retrospective equitable relief, under Rule 12(b)(1), contending that the Eleventh Amendment confers immunity from those claims. (Id. at 13-14.) Defendant Litchfield moves to dismiss the remaining claims against him, under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that those claims are inadequately pleaded, and alternatively, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to those claims. (Id. at 4-12, 14-15.)
Also on January 11, 2022, Defendants Dipzinski and Pinnock filed a separate motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 14.) Defendants Dipzinski and Pinnock argue, among...
To continue reading
Request your trial