Although she previously found a jury should decide whether Colorado Springs police officers and the city itself are liable for killing a man with a Taser, a federal judge has declined to forge ahead with a trial while the defendants appeal her ruling.

In March, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello determined a jury could conclude Officers Daniel Patterson and Joshua Archer used excessive force when they struck Jeffrey Melvin with a Taser eight times in two minutes, seemingly without reasonable suspicion that Melvin committed a crime. She denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which would have ended the case in Colorado Springs’ favor without a jury trial.

The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Although such mid-case, or “interlocutory,” appeals are generally not allowed, there is an exception when the appeal implicates qualified immunity – a judicial doctrine that can shield government employees from civil liability. Even then, an interlocutory appeal is improper when it challenges facts, rather than a judge’s application of the law.

The plaintiff, Melvin’s estate, insisted the defendants were improperly appealing Arguello’s order to delay the case further, and asked the judge to declare the appeal “frivolous.” The effect of doing so would allow Arguello to retain jurisdiction, rather than wait for the 10th Circuit to resolve the appeal.

However, Arguello ultimately agreed to relinquish jurisdiction of the case to the appeals court.

“The Court stands by its Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and reiterates that this case should proceed to trial,” she wrote on May 12. “The Court is also mindful that this case has been pending for a very long time and that Plaintiff and the public have a strong interest in resolving the matter promptly and efficiently.”

Nevertheless, she was “not convinced that Defendants’ appeal utterly lacks legal support.”

As described in the parties’ court filings, after midnight on April 26, 2018, Patterson and Archer responded to a report of a disturbance in an apartment building on the 3300 block of East Fountain Boulevard. Melvin let them into the building as he was leaving and the officers went to Apt. 211. Jordan Bruno, who answered the door, acknowledged there was a fight earlier, but the combatants had left.

Inside apartment 211 were an adult woman and a 16-year-old girl, identified as A.S. Both of them said they were fine, but the officers were suspicious of A.S.’ presence. She denied being a runaway and called her uncle to request that he pick her up.

Patterson stepped outside to talk on the phone, but then Melvin returned. Allegedly, Patterson asked if Melvin was going into apartment 211. Melvin reportedly said no, but ran inside and slammed the door – a sequence of events not captured on Patterson’s body-worn camera.

The officers then attempted to detain Melvin, prompting a struggle. Between the two of them, Patterson and Archer tased Melvin eight times in two minutes. Melvin yelled for Bruno to help him, but Patterson pepper sprayed Bruno.

Melvin ran from the apartment before collapsing in the street.

“You’re killing me. You’re honestly killing me,” Melvin told the officers. “I can’t breathe.”

Melvin, 27, died days later.

His estate then brought an excessive force lawsuit against the two officers, and also argued the city was liable for failing to train on the proper use of force.

“Mr. Melvin did not comply with the Officers’ commands,” responded Assistant City Attorney Anne H. Turner. “Mr. Melvin was erratic and irrational and possessed super-human strength and stamina, which the Officers interpreted as signs of drug use.”

Melvin had no illicit drugs in his system the morning of his arrest.

Arguello refused to grant summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, which is possible when the key, undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion under the law. She noted the officers had no reason to suspect Melvin of any crime involving the earlier fight or A.S.

“The Court notes that the Officers became ‘hands on’ with Mr. Melvin almost immediately after he entered the apartment,” she wrote. “Defendants concede that Mr. Melvin did not initiate any physical contact; he never attempted to hit, kick, bite, or spit at the Officers; and he never threatened anyone.”

A jury, looking at the facts, could find the officers acted unreasonably by striking Melvin so much in so little time, Arguello added, which clearly violated Melvin’s constitutional rights. As for the city, the officers suggested they acted in accordance with their training, in which case a jury could find the training constitutionally deficient.

The defendants appealed to the 10th Circuit, prompting Melvin’s estate to urge Arguello to declare it frivolous, alleging the appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review Arguello’s order in the first place.

“Defendants have already succeeded in delaying this action for years, and now propose to kick it down the calendar in hopes of avoiding trial until 2025,” wrote the plaintiffs’ lawyers. “This Court has the power to more swiftly and efficiently administer justice.”

The defendants justified their appeal by pointing to another recent case under similar circumstances. In 2021, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez found an appeal frivolous in an excessive force case out of Fort Collins, calling it a “a thinly veiled and poorly reasoned attempt” to undermine his reading of the facts. However, Martínez ultimately backed down and vacated the trial date. Shortly afterward, the 10th Circuit reversed his decision.

“To proceed to trial now, when the 10th Circuit is considering reversing the denial of summary judgment,” wrote attorneys for Colorado Springs, “could waste the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources.”

Arguello conceded the 10th Circuit could, likewise, choose to review her conclusions that Patterson and Archer may have committed a clear constitutional violation. She declined to label the appeal frivolous.

The case is Estate of Jeffrey Melvin v. City of Colorado Springs et al.