A federal judge has dismissed a man’s lawsuit against the city of Loveland and multiple police officers that alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest.

Although Christopher Talmadge claimed that he was nonviolent and “minding his own business” when police reportedly slammed his head into his driveway, the city pointed to an affidavit the night of Talmadge’s arrest indicating that he had assaulted his roommate and resisted officers.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak noted that Talmadge had failed to allege which officers did what, meaning his excessive force claim was not viable under the law. As for the claim of unlawful arrest, Varholak explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey prevents criminal defendants from suing for monetary damages over unconstitutional imprisonment unless their conviction is overturned.

“Plaintiff was arrested on charges of third degree assault and resisting arrest and a jury convicted him of those charges,” Varholak wrote in a May 19 order. “Accordingly, Plaintiff’s illegal arrest claim is barred by Heck.“

In Talmadge’s narrative of events, he attempted to eject his roommate from his Loveland home on July 6, 2019, but the roommate refused and instead called police to the home. Talmadge allegedly told responding officers what had happened and they left.

Talmadge’s roommate continued to remain in the home, allegedly telling Talmadge: “You will leave before I do.”

The roommate then exited the house and Talmadge soon received a call from police asking him to step outside.

Once in the driveway, an unidentified officer reportedly told Talmadge to face the garage, prompting Talmadge to ask if he was under arrest. Another officer, according to Talmadge, slammed him to the ground where his “head bounced off the concrete.” The next thing Talmadge recalled was being at the hospital.

“Mr. Talmadge was minding his own business, and did not pose a danger to himself or others,” Talmadge wrote in his complaint. “Force is not reasonable when a suspect is non-violent, not resisting, not fleeing, or poses no threat.”

He also claimed the encounter demonstrated a “serious training issue” with the Loveland Police Department.

In their motion to dismiss, the defendants submitted a police affidavit in support of Talmadge’s arrest from July 6. Talmadge’s roommate reported that Talmadge assaulted him and Talmadge resisted when officers told him he was under arrest.

The defendants asked Varholak to dismiss the lawsuit because of Talmadge’s successful criminal prosecution and because he neglected to describe the actions each officer took to allegedly harm him.

“Being a defendant in civil rights litigation is stressful, time-consuming, and especially in the case of law enforcement, detracts from everyday duties to the public,” lawyers for the defendants wrote. “Indeed, the Amended Complaint lacks even a single allegation of how any specific officer touched Mr. Talmadge or engaged in force that was in excess of what was required to arrest him.”

Varholak allowed Talmadge, who represented himself in court, to refile his lawsuit by June 6 if Talmadge wished to bolster any of his claims that the magistrate judge found lacking.

The case is Talmadge v. Marner et al.