A trio of federal judges in recent weeks cut back the number of claims that could proceed to trial in lawsuits stemming from police use of force during the protests in downtown Denver four years ago.

Numerous judges this year have found Denver or its officers may be held liable for excessive force or First Amendment violations in a series of lawsuits. The claims all arose after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd in May 2020, prompting international demonstrations. Denver police, along with other responding agencies, subsequently used force against violent rioters and peaceful protesters.

However, judges are continuing to find the allegations and evidence do not support a constitutional violation in every instance.

On Oct. 3, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez granted Arvada’s motion to end Suzy Dennis’ claims against the city.

Dennis alleged she was walking along Colfax Avenue during the curfew imposed by Denver’s mayor when she stopped and decided to record the non-violent protesters. Within minutes, police began using force. A projectile hit Dennis’ hand, causing serious damage to her index finger that required extensive medical treatment.

In her lawsuit, however, Dennis noted she did not know the identity of the person who shot at her. Instead, she attributed her injury to a member of the Jefferson County Regional SWAT team, consisting of law enforcement from metro area jurisdictions. She named several individual officers, the cities of Arvada and Golden, then-Jeffco Sheriff Jeff Shrader and Denver itself as defendants.

Martínez previously granted motions to dismiss from Golden, Denver and Shrader, after which Arvada filed its request. Based on his prior ruling, Martínez agreed last month that the same reasoning applied: Dennis had not shown how governmental policies were behind officers’ alleged violations of her constitutional rights.

Dennis’ lawsuit is currently proceeding against former Denver police Chief Paul Pazen. Martínez’s decision last year not to eliminate Dennis’ excessive force claim against Pazen is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and a ruling is pending.

The case is Dennis v. City and County of Denver.

On Sept. 30, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang ended certain claims by two plaintiffs who were injured or arrested around the time of the protests.

Carol Funk alleged she was in Denver’s Civic Center Park in July 2020 to protest a law enforcement appreciation event. Officers deployed pepper spray and pepper balls, which caused burning on Funk’s skin. She contended the protesters, without warning, were targets for force because they expressed an anti-police viewpoint.

The city argued it could not be held liable for any constitutional violation because Funk “was a bystander to an objectively reasonable use of force.” Wang agreed there was no evidence of a widespread practice or custom by Denver that caused Funk’s injuries. She also faulted Funk’s lawyers for making imprecise or uncompelling arguments.

“(R)ather than responding to the arguments raised in the Motion specific to this case and this plaintiff, Ms. Funk recycles sections of briefs responding to arguments raised in filings from different actions,” Wang wrote. “The Court is unpersuaded by the non-responsive, copy-and-paste portions of Ms. Funk’s brief insofar as they fail to address the issues presented in this case.”

The city also moved to end the claim of Elijah Wesbrock, who was arrested for violating the curfew. Denver argued Wesbrock’s claim was barred by a settlement agreement for a prior case, in which Wesbrock was part of the class of curfew violators the settlement encompassed. Wang agreed Wesbrock’s unlawful arrest claim was barred by the terms.

The other claims in the lawsuit are set for a jury trial next August.

The case is Blades et al. v. City and County of Denver.

Also on Sept. 30, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer dismissed multiple police officers and high-ranking officials from a lawsuit brought by Michael Driscoll, who alleged police hit him with tear gas, fired a projectile that broke the sign he was carrying and damaged his skull with a rubber bullet.

Driscoll originally filed suit in October 2021, but the most recent version of his complaint from two years later included detailed allegations against individual officers. The defendants argued Driscoll had effectively added claims against the officers outside of the statute limitations, and Brimmer agreed.

Brimmer noted Driscoll had originally described being shot in the head, meaning the amended allegations had to “relate back” to that incident. Driscoll had instead incorporated other encounters with officers that did not relate back, Brimmer concluded.

Driscoll countered that the difficulty of identifying the wrongful conduct of individual officers — in part due to the failure to document uses of force — was an “extraordinary circumstance” that should excuse compliance with the statute of limitations. Brimmer was unconvinced.

“Mr. Driscoll’s argument regarding extraordinary circumstances misses the point. The circumstances that must be extraordinary are not those that give rise to Mr. Driscoll’s claims, but rather the circumstances that prevented Mr. Driscoll from accessing the courts, such as the courthouse being closed due to war,” he wrote. “Mr. Driscoll identifies no extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from accessing the courts before the statute of limitations had run.”

Brimmer also agreed to dismiss claims made against Denver, the police chief and the commander of special operations. He believed Driscoll had not credibly alleged how the city’s failure to train or supervise its officers violated Driscoll’s rights.

Driscoll has since asked Brimmer to reconsider the portion of his order pertaining to Denver.

The case is Driscoll v. City and County of Denver et al.