Brooks v. City and County of Denver.
2026 COA 42. No. 25CA0987. Colorado Constitution—Due Process—Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights—Peace Officers—Jail Suicide—Unreasonable Seizure—Wrongful Death—Remedies.
May 28, 2026
Tweed was arrested in Denver on an outstanding warrant in Adams County. He submitted to arrest without incident and was then left in a patrol car for about three hours before officers transported him to the Denver detention center. While at the detention center, one or more of the arresting officers “formed the belief” that Tweed had assaulted them. The officers then instructed the intake officer to charge Tweed with multiple felonies stemming from the assault. Accordingly, jail staff assigned Tweed to a higher security classification than they would have if he had been booked on only the misdemeanor warrant charge. Officers conducted a medical and mental health assessment of Tweed and did not assign him to a mental health observation unit. Three days later, Tweed hanged himself in his jail cell. He died after being transported to Denver Health Medical Center. On behalf of herself and Tweed’s estate, Tweed’s common-law spouse, Brooks, sued the City and County of Denver (the city), the Denver chief of police, and the Denver sheriff (the Denver defendants); various police and sheriff’s department employees; the Denver Health and Hospital Authority and its CEO (the hospital defendants); and various hospital authority employees. Brooks brought four state constitutional claims (one unreasonable seizure claim and three due process claims) on behalf of Tweed’s estate under CRS § 13-20-101 and asserted one wrongful death claim under § 13-21-202. Brooks requested damages and prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed each claim for failure to state a claim under CRCP 12(b)(5).
As an initial matter on appeal, defendants argued that the dismissal of Brooks’s survival claims should be affirmed because (1) Brooks isn’t the personal representative of the estate, so she lacks standing to bring claims on its behalf; and (2) Brooks lacks standing to pursue prospective equitable relief on the estate’s behalf. The court of appeals rejected the first argument because the Denver Probate Court appointed Brooks as special administrator of Tweed’s estate more than a month before the defendants filed their answer briefs in this appeal. As to the second argument, defendants maintained that Brooks lacks standing to seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief under her claim alleging that certain defendants failed to implement effective suicide prevention policies, because the estate won’t benefit from a court order requiring them to implement more effective policies. Here, Brooks did not allege any threatened or impending wrongful action against herself or Tweed’s estate, so she and the estate lack standing to pursue the prospective declaratory and injunctive relief portion of her second claim.
Brooks contended that the district court erred by dismissing her unreasonable seizure claim against the arresting officers and the intake officer. However, Brooks’s amended complaint didn’t allege how the arresting officers and intake officer acted unreasonably when seizing Tweed. Further, the amended complaint didn’t assert that no warrant existed or that the officers otherwise lacked probable cause for the arrests; and it didn’t allege how the officer(s) who “formed the belief” that Tweed had assaulted them did so unreasonably or that some objective circumstance contradicted the officers’ belief. Accordingly, Brooks’s amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for a violation of Tweed’s right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
Brooks also argued that the district court erred by dismissing her three survival claims alleging that certain defendants violated Tweed’s right to due process under the Colorado Constitution. Having not previously addressed a state due process claim brought under § 13-21-131 arising from a jail suicide, the court looked to cases under 42 USC § 1983, which is similar, as persuasive authority. The court held that a plaintiff asserting such a claim must show that the jailer or their supervisor acted with deliberate indifference. Here, Brooks didn’t allege that any defendant knew that Tweed had a traumatic history or that he was suicidal at the time of his detention, so the facts do not demonstrate that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference. The district court thus properly dismissed the three survival claims.
Brooks further requested that the court recognize (1) a damages remedy against government actors who aren’t peace officers covered by § 13-21-131 when they violate a pretrial detainee’s rights under the Colorado Constitution, and (2) a damages remedy against the employer of a government actor who violates a person’s state constitutional rights. Having concluded that Brooks failed to plausibly state a claim that any government actor violated Tweed’s state constitutional rights, the court did not address these requests.
Brooks also contended that the district court erred by dismissing her wrongful death claim against the city for failure to state a plausible claim for negligence. In her amended complaint, Brooks alleged that the city breached its duty to prevent Tweed’s suicide while he was in custody. The court held that a jailer has a duty to protect a detainee from self-inflicted injury or death only where the risk of such harm is reasonably foreseeable. Here, Brooks didn’t allege facts suggesting that any defendant knew or should have reasonably foreseen that Tweed might take his own life. And Brooks’s allegations that certain defendants failed to reasonably assess and ascertain Tweed’s mental health disorders when booking him into the detention center were conclusory. Accordingly, the district court didn’t err by dismissing Brooks’ wrongful death claim under Rule 12(b)(5).
The court also denied the Denver defendants’ request for appellate attorney fees as inadequately developed.
The order granting the Denver defendants’ and the hospital defendants’ motions to dismiss Brooks’s amended complaint was affirmed.