7/27/2019 Amendment 64 lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs

1/4

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:

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

COURT USE ONLY ____________________________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 incontroversy exceeds $15,000.00.

2. Venue is proper in this Court since all acts allegedherein occurred in El Paso County, Colorado.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Dennis Sladek, hereinafter Sladekwas and is relevant to the allegations contained herein aresident of El Paso County, Colorado.

7/27/2019 Amendment 64 lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs

2/4

4. Defendant, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, hereinafterCity, was and is relevant to the allegations contained hereina municipality of the State of Colorado organized under thatstates 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 mayorof Defendant City.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. In the 2012 statewide election, the people of the State ofColorado voted for the legalization of marijuana forrecreational use.

8. Plaintiff Sladek seeks to open a legal recreationalmarijuana 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 recreationaldispensaries in the city limits of City.

11.Prior to Defendant Counsel voting to ban legalrecreational dispensaries, Defendant Bach threatened Defendant

Counsel in that he would veto any ruling made by them to allowlegal recreational dispensaries in the city limits.

12. Defendants actions have caused Plaintiff severeeconomic 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 oflife, liberty and property in violation of the 14th Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution.

15. Defendants actions have deprived Plaintiff of hisconstitutional right to pursue a legal business.

7/27/2019 Amendment 64 lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs

3/4

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Equal protection violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution)

16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 above asif the same were contained herein.

17. The actions of all Defendants have deprived Plaintiff ofequal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.

18. Again, Defendants actions have deprived Plaintiff fromhis 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 asif the same were contained herein.

20. Plaintiffs proposed business would include thelegitimate sale of marijuana to anyone over the legal agewhether 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 asif 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 asif the same were contained herein.

26. The law or statute prohibiting Plaintiff from engagingin a legally protected business is unconstitutional.

7/27/2019 Amendment 64 lawsuit against the city of Colorado Springs

4/4

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 toopen his business, actual damages, compensatory damages, and anyand 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