Amendment 64 lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs
Colorado Springs attorney Dennis Sladek's lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs alleging the ability to ban recreational-marijuana stores is unconstitutional.
Content
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone Number: (719) 488-7650
DENNIS SLADEK,
Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO a Colorado municipality, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNSEL, and STEPHEN BACH
Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiff: ∆ COURT USE ONLY ∆
____________________________
Dennis Sladek, pro se
11605 Meridian Market View Unit 124 PMB 123 Falcon, CO 80831 Phone Number: (719) 260-1756 Fax Number: (719) 599-8339
Case Number: 13CV254 Div: 16
COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000.00. 2. Venue is proper in this Court since all acts alleged herein occurred in El Paso County, Colorado. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Dennis Sladek, hereinafter “Sladek” was and is relevant to the allegations contained herein a resident of El Paso County, Colorado.
4. Defendant, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, hereinafter “City”, was and is relevant to the allegations contained herein a municipality of the State of Colorado organized under that state’s laws 5. Defendant, City of Colorado Springs City Counsel, hereinafter “Counsel” is the city counsel of Defendant City. 6. Defendant, Stephen Bach, hereinafter “Bach” is the mayor of Defendant City. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. In the 2012 statewide election, the people of the State of Colorado voted for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. 8. Plaintiff Sladek seeks to open a legal recreational marijuana dispensary for all citizens of the State of Colorado. 9. Plaintiff Sladek has found a building in Colorado Springs, Colorado to use as his marijuana dispensary. 10.Defendant Counsel has voted to ban legal recreational dispensaries in the city limits of City. 11.Prior to Defendant Counsel voting to ban legal recreational dispensaries, Defendant Bach threatened Defendant Counsel in that he would veto any ruling made by them to allow legal recreational dispensaries in the city limits. 12. Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff severe economic losses. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Due process violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) 13. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if the same were contained herein. 14. The actions of all Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of life, liberty and property in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 15. Defendants’ actions have deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to pursue a legal business.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Equal protection violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) 16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 above as if the same were contained herein. 17. The actions of all Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of equal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 18. Again, Defendants’ actions have deprived Plaintiff from his constitutional right to pursue a legal business. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) 19. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if the same were contained herein. 20. Plaintiff’s proposed business would include the legitimate sale of marijuana to anyone over the legal age whether they be from Colorado or another state. 21. Defendants’ actions constitute a restraint on trade. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) 22. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if the same were contained herein. 23. Defendants’ actions were negligent. 24. Defendants’ negligence caused damages to Plaintiff. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutionality of law or statute) 25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 above as if the same were contained herein. 26. The law or statute prohibiting Plaintiff from engaging in a legally protected business is unconstitutional.
27. The law or statute creates a denial of due process. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against all Defendants for Plaintiff to be allowed to open his business, actual damages, compensatory damages, and any and all relief that the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES Respectfully submitted this 26th day of July, 2013.
__________________________________ Dennis J. Sladek
DENNIS SLADEK,
Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO a Colorado municipality, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNSEL, and STEPHEN BACH
Defendants. Attorney for Plaintiff: ∆ COURT USE ONLY ∆
____________________________
Dennis Sladek, pro se
11605 Meridian Market View Unit 124 PMB 123 Falcon, CO 80831 Phone Number: (719) 260-1756 Fax Number: (719) 599-8339
Case Number: 13CV254 Div: 16
COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000.00. 2. Venue is proper in this Court since all acts alleged herein occurred in El Paso County, Colorado. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Dennis Sladek, hereinafter “Sladek” was and is relevant to the allegations contained herein a resident of El Paso County, Colorado.
4. Defendant, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, hereinafter “City”, was and is relevant to the allegations contained herein a municipality of the State of Colorado organized under that state’s laws 5. Defendant, City of Colorado Springs City Counsel, hereinafter “Counsel” is the city counsel of Defendant City. 6. Defendant, Stephen Bach, hereinafter “Bach” is the mayor of Defendant City. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. In the 2012 statewide election, the people of the State of Colorado voted for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. 8. Plaintiff Sladek seeks to open a legal recreational marijuana dispensary for all citizens of the State of Colorado. 9. Plaintiff Sladek has found a building in Colorado Springs, Colorado to use as his marijuana dispensary. 10.Defendant Counsel has voted to ban legal recreational dispensaries in the city limits of City. 11.Prior to Defendant Counsel voting to ban legal recreational dispensaries, Defendant Bach threatened Defendant Counsel in that he would veto any ruling made by them to allow legal recreational dispensaries in the city limits. 12. Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff severe economic losses. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Due process violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) 13. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if the same were contained herein. 14. The actions of all Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of life, liberty and property in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 15. Defendants’ actions have deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to pursue a legal business.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Equal protection violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) 16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 above as if the same were contained herein. 17. The actions of all Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of equal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 18. Again, Defendants’ actions have deprived Plaintiff from his constitutional right to pursue a legal business. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) 19. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if the same were contained herein. 20. Plaintiff’s proposed business would include the legitimate sale of marijuana to anyone over the legal age whether they be from Colorado or another state. 21. Defendants’ actions constitute a restraint on trade. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) 22. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if the same were contained herein. 23. Defendants’ actions were negligent. 24. Defendants’ negligence caused damages to Plaintiff. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unconstitutionality of law or statute) 25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 above as if the same were contained herein. 26. The law or statute prohibiting Plaintiff from engaging in a legally protected business is unconstitutional.
27. The law or statute creates a denial of due process. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against all Defendants for Plaintiff to be allowed to open his business, actual damages, compensatory damages, and any and all relief that the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES Respectfully submitted this 26th day of July, 2013.
__________________________________ Dennis J. Sladek
