76 - Amended Complaint

Case 1:22-cv-02886-JLK Document 76 Filed 03/06/23 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 46
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 1:22-cv-02886-JLK
BRANDON PRYOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 d/b/a DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

SUPERINTENDENT ALEX MARRERO, in his individual and official capacities;
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ANTHONY SMITH, in his individual and official capacities;
VICE PRESIDENT AUON’TAI ANDERSON, in his individual and official capacities;
GENERAL COUNSEL AARON THOMPSON, in his individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Brandon Pryor (“Mr. Pryor”), by and through his attorneys, Mari Newman and
Andrew McNulty of KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, alleges and avers the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. Criticism of government and public employees has been a core protected activity
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution since the day the ink dried on the
Bill of Rights.
2. Yet, School District No. 1 d/b/a Denver Public Schools (“DPS”), Superintendent
Alex Marrero, Deputy Superintendent Anthony Smith, DPS Board of Education (“BOE”) Vice
President Auon’tai Anderson, and General Counsel Aaron Thompson (collectively
“Defendants”), retaliated against Brandon Pryor for exercising his free speech rights in
advocating against DPS and its employees for blatant discrimination and unlawful practices
against Black students, educators, and leaders.
3. Defendants retaliated against Mr. Pryor’s free speech by banning Mr. Pryor from
being present on any DPS property, including the DPS school Mr. Pryor co-founded;
volunteering as a DPS high school football coach; volunteering in any capacity for any DPS
school; speaking at DPS Board of Education public comment; and engaging in other activities
that are afforded to tax paying citizens with respect to DPS and its public schools and properties.
4. Defendants have also retaliated against Mr. Pryor by publishing false, defamatory
information to the media and to DPS parents and students about Mr. Pryor with the intent to
damage his reputation.
5. Defendants continued to retaliate against Mr. Pryor by instituting a baseless
protection order proceeding against him and attempting to use those proceedings to cause him to
be banned from DPS BOE meetings, even after this Court entered a preliminary injunction
prohibiting further retaliation by Defendants.
6. Defendants’ unlawful retaliation was (and continues to be) clearly designed to
silence Mr. Pryor and it violated his Constitutional rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Mr. Pryor brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 for
violation of civil rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights violation), 28 U.S.C. § 2201
(declaratory relief), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims).
2
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who reside in and conduct
business in the District of Colorado.
10. Venue is proper in the District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the unlawful practices alleged herein occurred within the District of
Colorado.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff, Brandon Pryor, is a United States citizen and resident of Denver,
Colorado.
12. Defendant DPS is a public school system located in the City and County of
Denver that is funded, in part, by Denver taxpayers and governed by elected officials on the DPS
BOE.
13. Defendant Alex Marrero is the Superintendent of DPS, and is a resident and
domiciled in the State of Colorado. DPS’ BOE has issued policies that vest Defendant Marrero
with authority to make all operational decisions on behalf of DPS and to implement DPS’
policies and procedures. At all times relevant, Defendant Marrero was acting under color of state
law and in his capacity as Superintendent of DPS. Defendant Marrero is sued in his official and
individual capacities.
14. Defendant Anthony Smith is the Deputy Superintendent of DPS, and is a resident
and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant Marrero has granted Defendant Smith
authority to manage many operational tasks, including operational decisions relating to DPS
schools located in Far Northeast Denver (“FNE”). At all times relevant, Defendant Smith was
3
acting under color of state law and in his capacity as Deputy Superintendent of DPS. Defendant
Smith is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
15. Defendant Auon’tai Anderson is the Vice President of the DPS BOE, and is a
resident and domiciled in the State of Colorado. At all times relevant, Defendant Anderson was
acting under color of state law and in his capacity as Vice President of the DPS BOE. Defendant
Anderson is being sued in his official and individual capacities.
16. Defendant Aaron Thompson is the General Counsel for DPS, and is a resident and
domiciled in the State of Colorado. At all times relevant, Defendant Thompson was acting under
color of state law and in his capacity as General Counsel for DPS. Defendant Thompson is being
sued in his official and individual capacities.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Brandon Pryor has a long and well-established history of advocacy within DPS and
criticism of DPS officials.
17. For the past five years, Brandon Pryor has been a passionate, powerful voice in
the community advocating against DPS’ systemic discrimination and oppression over Black
students, educators, and community. Mr. Pryor has utilized his personal Facebook page as a
platform to inform community about the happenings in DPS and to vigorously advocate for
education justice within DPS.
18. Mr. Pryor has also passionately advocated for change during DPS BOE meetings.
19. Over the years, Mr. Pryor has attracted a significant following of supporters, and
his advocacy has been extremely effective in impacting positive change for students and schools
within DPS.
4
20. Mr. Pryor started his advocacy in 2017, when he began coaching on the FNE
Warriors Football team, the only regional program in the country 1.
21. In 2018, Mr. Pryor co-founded Warriors for High Quality Schools, a Colorado
Nonprofit Corporation, to further efforts advocating for education justice, particularly in FNE
Denver.
22. In 2019, Warriors for High Quality Schools prepared an application to form a
school specifically designed to educate Black students in light of DPS’ documented failures and
outright discrimination 2 toward Black students. Mr. Pryor and his co-founders patterned the
school, named the Robert S. Smith STEAM Academy (the "STEAM Academy"), after
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“HBCUs”) so that Black students in DPS can learn
about their rich history, have a pride for who they are as Black individuals, and gain a top-quality
education that will lead to STEAM fields. Like HBCUs, the new high school is also open to and
benefits students of all colors and races.
23. While pursing the new school application, Mr. Pryor and Warriors for High
Quality Schools continued advocating for DPS to reopen Montbello High School (“MHS”).
Because DPS was initially dismissive of any efforts to reopen MHS, Mr. Pryor continued his
advocacy and used his voice and public platform to convince DPS leadership to make significant
upgrades to the MHS building and campus, including, but not limited to, (1) a library inside of
1
The regional program was formed as a direct result of DPS’ oppressive acts in closing Montbello High
School, the heart of the Montbello community, and replacing the school with eleven different high schools
in the FNE area.
2
For example, evidence collected in 2018 indicated the achievement gap between Black students and White
students within DPS was the third largest achievement gap in the United States. There is evidence to suggest
that the achievement gap has only grown larger in 2022, and DPS has refused to reveal the true data.
5
the MHS, which was being used as a classroom for five different schools located in the MHS
building; (2) a brand new, state of the art weight room; (3) new turf, stadium lights, bleachers,
and concrete foundation for MHS’ athletic fields; and (4) other meaningful improvements to
level the playing field for DPS students in FNE Denver.
24. Meanwhile, Mr. Pryor continued coaching football for FNE Warriors. Mr. Pryor
and the team of coaches rebuilt the FNE Warriors football team after the FNE Warriors’ previous
coach abandoned the team mid-season to coach at a different school. Ultimately, the FNE
Warriors won a 5A State Championship in 2020.
25. Mr. Pryor also co-founded Warrior Nation, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation and
youth sports organization, which was designed to be a feeder program into the FNE Warriors
program. No other school in DPS has developed feeder programs at the youth level for its high
schools. Yet, Mr. Pryor and his co-founder garnered the support and major buy-in from
community members across the Denver metropolitan area.
26. Mr. Pryor’s advocacy has included speaking at DPS Board public comment
sessions and posting commentary and videos on Facebook. He has pressed DPS to provide
libraries, improved weight room facilities, and lights on the athletic fields in FNE Denver. He
took up issues such as teachers coaching at schools other than where they teach because he was
concerned it would take students out of the community and reduce funding for the local
schools.
Mr. Pryor criticizes DPS’s, and its officials’, actions regarding the Robert F. Smith
STEAM academy.
27. In August 2019, the DPS BOE approved the formation of the STEAM Academy.
6
28. In approving the STEAM Academy, the DPS BOE issued a resolution for facility
placement and concluded that the STEAM Academy would be co-located with Montbello Career
and Technical School (“MCT”) in an office building located in the FNE. The BOE resolution
promised that the facility would be a temporary location for up to two years, and that DPS would
continue searching for a long-term facility.
29. Despite approving the STEAM Academy, DPS and its employees began engaging
various actions that caused significant issues with the progress, enrollment, and success of the
STEAM Academy.
30. The STEAM Academy was scheduled to open its doors to DPS students in the fall
of August 2021, and the DPS School Choice and Enrollment (“Choice”) process began in
February 2021.
31. The Warriors for High Quality Schools’ team worked tirelessly to promote the
STEAM Academy in an effort to reach its projected enrollment goals of between 100 and 125
students. The initial round of Choice was critical for the inaugural year of the STEAM Academy.
32. However, unfortunately, DPS’ Choice department recklessly misidentified the
STEAM Academy’s address on the Choice form. Instead of identifying the office building in
which DPS placed the STEAM Academy, DPS’ Choice team assigned DPS downtown
headquarters, 1860 Lincoln, as the STEAM Academy’s address. Consequently, when parents
entered their home addresses into the Choice system, the STEAM Academy did not show as an
option for their students to enroll. Notably, DPS’ Choice Department had correctly identified the
address for all of the other newly approved schools during the critical first round of Choice.
7
33. When Mr. Pryor learned of DPS’ egregious misstep, he immediately contacted
DPS and raised complaints and concerns. Mr. Pryor participated in a Zoom meeting with Liz
Mendez, who led the Choice department. During the Zoom meeting, Mr. Pryor criticized Ms.
Mendez and her team for making such an obvious error, which seemed intentional given the
correct identification of addresses for other new schools that were not based on the HBCU
model.
34. Remarkably, DPS employees in the Choice department then began to more
actively discourage enrollment in the STEAM Academy, calling parents who enrolled their
students and asking them if they really wanted their children to attend the STEAM Academy.
Parents began calling Mr. Pryor, informing him that DPS employees were seemingly trying to
convince them that they made the wrong decision by enrolling their children to attend the
STEAM Academy.
35. Mr. Pryor went live on Facebook publicly opposing DPS’ continued efforts to
purposefully interfere with the Choice process and enrollment at the STEAM Academy. Mr.
Pryor informed community members of DPS’ actions, and he encouraged the community to
contact him if they continued experiencing issues with enrolling their students at the STEAM
Academy. Mr. Pryor also continued to press the line with DPS, and as a remedy for DPS’
harmful actions, DPS ultimately agreed to fund the STEAM Academy based on its projected
enrollment of 125 students per year for the next four years.
Mr. Pryor criticizes DPS and its officials for firing Black educators and leaders.
8
36. Ironically, shortly after DPS approved the application to open the STEAM
Academy in 2019, DPS suddenly announced a decision to reopen MHS. DPS hired Neisa Lynch
as the new principal to lead MHS.
37. Remarkably, Ms. Lynch fired the coaching staff for the FNE Warriors, even after
Mr. Pryor and the FNE coaching staff advocated for well over five years to reopen MHS and to
improve the MHS building. Ms. Lynch also terminated the employment of many valuable and
talented Black educators.
38. Defendants also terminated the employment of various other Black leaders
throughout DPS who have advocated and established successful programming for Black
students.
39. Just as he had done for the previous six years, Mr. Pryor utilized his platform on
Facebook to bring awareness to the community about DPS’ decisions around the reopening of
MHS and the mass termination of Black educators. Mr. Pryor also informed the community
about Ms. Lynch’s decisions to terminate the FNE coaching staff and other Black educators and
leaders.
Mr. Pryor criticizes DPS and its officials for its mishandling of the FNE regional
football teams’ schedule.
40. In Summer 2021, DPS announced that the FNE regional football team would be
dissolved and that players from the FNE regional team could immediately begin playing football
for MHS or any other school within DPS.
41. Mr. Pryor recognized the harm DPS’ hasty decision-making causes to community,
and he began advocating against DPS’ decision to shut down the FNE Warriors regional team.
Ultimately, Mr. Pryor and others convinced DPS to maintain the FNE Warriors program until
9
2024 and allow MHS to establish a freshman football team, the MHS Warriors. MHS, the
STEAM Academy, and other FNE schools had two years to establish sports programs for their
respective schools.
42. On or about August 27, 2022, Mr. Pryor utilized his platform on Facebook to
inform community about a game that was taken from the FNE Warriors’ Junior Varsity (“JV”)
football team. Mr. Pryor explained that the FNE Warriors’ JV team appeared for a pre-scheduled
game against Westminster High School (“Westminster”), and Westminster did not show up for
the game.
43. It was later discovered that Westminster’s athletic director was confused by the
two Warriors programs and erroneously contacted someone at MHS to inquire about the JV
game against Westminster. MHS staff refused to reroute the call to FNE Warriors. Instead, MHS
staff arranged for Westminster’s JV team to play the MHS Warriors’ Freshman team instead of
the pre-scheduled game against FNE Warriors.
44. Community was outraged. DPS was fully aware of this incident, yet it failed to
take any corrective action against Ms. Lynch or anyone at MHS.
45. Notably, Defendant Smith is friends with Ms. Lynch and the new staff at MHS,
including the MHS Athletic Director, Damian Brown. Mr. Brown was initially the athletic
director for FNE Warriors. However, he left FNE and began working in a different school
district. Ms. Lynch hired Mr. Brown when MHS was reopened. Before Ms. Lynch terminated the
FNE coaching staff, Mr. Brown created the FNE Warriors’ schedule without any input from the
FNE coaching staff. After DPS decided the FNE team would be maintained, Mr. Brown did not
create a schedule for the MHS Warriors’ freshman team.
10
46. Mr. Pryor raised concerns on Facebook about Defendant Smith, Ms. Lynch, and
Mr. Brown and the lack of accountability for Ms. Lynch, Mr. Brown, and any other MHS staff
for the JV game that was taken. In response, Defendants began investigating Mr. Pryor for
raising concerns on Facebook about how cronyism between Defendant Smith and MHS
leadership was continuing to harm DPS students.
47. Mr. Pryor continued using Facebook to inform community about, and to advocate
against, Ms. Lynch’s decisions and actions and the lack of accountability due to cronyism. Mr.
Pryor specifically made Facebook posts about Defendant Smith as well as Ms. Lynch’s husband,
who is a public employee who works for Westminster Public Schools.
Mr. Pryor criticizes DPS and its officials for failing to provide adequate facilities
and hot lunches to STEAM academy students.
48. Since August 2022, Mr. Pryor was present nearly every day at the STEAM
Academy, building relationships with staff and students, ensuring students were safe and in class,
and ensuring students’ needs were met.
49. Soon, Mr. Pryor began noticing significant issues with the office building and its
impact on the students’ learning. While the office building is nice, it is simply not a school
building. Students are crammed into small offices and spaces that were never designed to be
classrooms. The office building has very narrow hallways and does not have a kitchen to feed
students a hot lunch.
50. Mr. Pryor began raising concerns with Defendant Smith and requested Defendant
Smith’s assistance in securing a more permanent facility. Defendant Smith responded to Mr.
Pryor’s concerns by outlining a number of criteria that the STEAM Academy was allegedly
supposed to satisfy before DPS could commit to providing it a new facility.
11
51. Knowing that DPS did not require any of those same criteria for schools with
majority White students, Mr. Pryor began advocating for the needs of the minority students at the
STEAM Academy. The conversation became heated.
52. Remarkably, Defendant Smith threatened Mr. Pryor and stated that Mr. Pryor
could have either “an adversary or an advocate”. Defendant Smith indicated that he could either
make it easy or hard for Mr. Pryor to obtain the necessary facilities for the STEAM Academy.
53. Around the same time, Defendant Marrero made a public comment that the “DPS
Blacks” were happy with him.
Mr. Pryor criticizes DPS and its officials about other issues of significant public
concern throughout 2022.
54. On September 16, 2022, Mr. Pryor began speaking out heavily on Facebook about
Defendant Smith, Defendant Marrero, and how cronyism was negatively impacting students.
55. Mr. Pryor sharply criticized Defendant Marrero, Defendant Smith, Ms. Lynch and
other public employees. Mr. Pryor also informed community about DPS’ blatant discrimination
against Black students and educators under Defendant Marrero’s leadership, including, but not
limited to, DPS’ actions in:
a. filing a trademark for the Know Justice Know Peace podcast, a creative,
constitutionally protected work created by Black female students;
b. placing a disproportionate number of Black male students in Affective Needs centers
without justification or testing;
c. failing to provide adequate school facilities, including a library, kitchen, and adequate
classroom space, for the STEAM Academy;
d. failing to provide hot, healthy lunches to students at the STEAM Academy;
12
e. creating barriers for the STEAM Academy to obtain a suitable facility by establishing
false requirements such as performance and enrollment while spending
$40,000,000.00 to fund more affluent and non-minority school communities without
those same requirements;
f. interfering with the STEAM Academy’s enrollment by placing students on the wait
list;
g. threatening to close MCT because DPS failed to keep its promises in finding a long-
term solution for the STEAM Academy’s facility placement; and
h. many other instances in which DPS has unlawfully discriminated against Black
students and educators.
56. On September 19, 2022, Mr. Pryor attended DPS’ BOE public comment session
and spoke out against DPS’ discriminatory treatment of the students at STEAM Academy. Both
Defendant Marrero and Defendant Smith were present during the public comment session, and
they listened to Mr. Pryor’s public comments.
57. Mr. Pryor also appeared in the news media highlighting DPS’ failures, including
DPS’ justifications for serving lukewarm lunches to the STEAM Academy students, who are
predominantly students of color.
58. After a BOE work session at DPS headquarters on October 12, 2022, Mr. Pryor
addressed his concerns with DPS staff about the lack of adequate facilities and meals for the
STEAM Academy students. Mr. Pryor was passionate in his delivery and denounced DPS staff
for failing to provide adequate facilities to DPS students at the STEAM Academy.
13
59. Mr. Pryor also spoke with Defendant Smith regarding his concerns on October 12,
2022. Defendant Smith met with Mr. Pryor at the STEAM Academy on October 13, 2022.
60. On October 17, 2022, Mr. Pryor and a large group of activists, students, parents,
and educators appeared at DPS headquarters for public comment. During their comments, the
large group raised concerns about feeling discriminated against, not having the proper facility or
daily meals to grow and thrive, and other important issues relating to the students’ education and
school environment at the STEAM Academy.
DPS and its officials begin a campaign of retaliation against Mr. Pryor by issuing a
letter banning him from continuing to advocate and volunteer at DPS.
61. On October 18, 2022, Defendants retaliated against Mr. Pryor by having two
armed DPS security officers serve a letter on Mr. Pryor at his personal residence. In the letter,
Defendants unlawfully banned Mr. Pryor from coaching, participating in DPS as a volunteer,
appearing at DPS for public comment, and being present on any DPS property, except during
“public events” and to participate in his children’s education (the “Ban Letter”).
62. The entire DPS BOE delegated the authority to Defendant Marrero to send the
Ban Letter to Mr. Pryor.
63. In addition, Defendant Marrero sent an inconsiderate email to the DPS
community in direct response to the previous day’s public comments. Defendant Marrero was
clearly bothered by Mr. Pryor’s advocacy during public comment, and his defensive email only
sparked more outrage amongst community members.
64. In its Ban Letter, DPS claimed that Mr. Pryor demonstrated an alleged pattern of
behavior that DPS deemed bullying, intimidating, and harassing. The Ban Letter was
accompanied by a thumb drive with purported supporting materials. In the Ban Letter and
14
materials, DPS reached far back into history in shameful attempt to justify Defendants’
unconstitutional actions in banning Mr. Pryor from DPS.
65. However, none of the evidence in the Ban Letter demonstrates any bullying,
intimidating, or harassing behavior towards any DPS employees. DPS’ alleged reasons for
banning Mr. Pryor are merely pretext for unlawful discrimination and retaliation in an attempt to
silence Mr. Pryor.
66. In its Ban Letter, DPS claims Mr. Pryor violated DPS policies, including
Administrative Policies KFA, KI, G, and AC. However, none of those policies applied to Mr.
Pryor’s actions, and there is no evidence to even suggest that Mr. Pryor violated any of those
policies.
67. Policy KFA prohibits certain public conduct on DPS school property. However,
DPS has not even alleged that Mr. Pryor engaged in any conduct while on school property.
Rather, the Ban Letter identifies Mr. Pryor’s speech that either occurred on Facebook or during
Zoom conferences. Moreover, even if Policy KFA did apply, which it does not, Mr. Pryor has
not engaged in any conduct that violates the policy, and DPS has not provided any evidence to
the contrary.
68. Importantly, DPS’s Policy KFA-R specifically required Defendants to engage in
conflict resolution, including, for example, mediation, with Mr. Pryor before issuing the Ban
Letter. Yet, none of Defendants and none of DPS’s employees ever attempted to engage in
conflict resolution with Mr. Pryor before issuing the Ban Letter.
69. In fact, Defendant Smith was well aware that DPS planned to issue the Ban Letter
on Mr. Pryor when Defendant Smith met with Mr. Pryor on October 13, 2022. Defendant Smith
15
refused to inform Mr. Pryor about the Ban Letter and failed to engage in conflict resolution with
Mr. Pryor as required under DPS’ policies.
70. Like Policy KFA, Policy KI applies to conduct on school property and governs
Visitors to Schools. Policy KI outlines limitations as to who may visit schools and the check-in
requirements for visitors. Policy KI does not apply to any fact or issue set forth in the Ban Letter,
and there is no indication that Mr. Pryor somehow violated Policy KI.
71. Next DPS claims it banned Mr. Pryor because he somehow violated Policy G,
which is DPS’ Employment Handbook. Yet, as DPS recognizes, Mr. Pryor is not a DPS
employee. Nothing about the Employment Handbook governs Mr. Pryor or his conduct.
72. Policy AC governs discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pryor somehow
violated DPS Policy AC. To the contrary, DPS was violating its own Policy AC, and Mr. Pryor
was raising awareness and concern around DPS’ blatant discrimination against Black students
and educators.
73. The Ban Letter and purported supporting materials contain false and defamatory
information and inferences. Defendants not only banned Mr. Pryor based on these false
statements, Defendants caused additional harm to Mr. Pryor by publishing false information to
media outlets and to families at STEAM Academy.
DPS retaliatorily, falsely claims that Mr. Pryor has felony convictions.
74. In a shameful attempt to ban Mr. Pryor from coaching, DPS falsely states that Mr.
Pryor has “felony convictions in Texas”. DPS’ statements are false and defamatory. Mr. Pryor
had a deferred judgment, which resulted in no convictions. Mr. Pryor does not have any felony
16
conviction in his history, let alone multiple felony convictions in Texas as DPS intentionally lead
the community to believe.
75. Importantly, DPS previously attempted to prevent Mr. Pryor from coaching based
on a 2014 assault charge. However, that charge arose from an incident wherein the alleged
victim, a White male, called Mr. Pryor a nigger and spit in his face. In response, Mr. Pryor
punched the alleged victim in the face, and the alleged victim filed charges.
76. Mr. Pryor advocated for himself and other Black and Latinx men in the
community with criminal charges to be allowed to coach. DPS agreed that Mr. Pryor should be
allowed to coach and teach youth about making mistakes by sharing his story. DPS changed its
policy to consider volunteers’ history on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Pryor has cleared the
background checks and has been coaching every school year since 2018.
77. Now, suddenly because DPS’s “new leadership”, Defendant Marrero and
Defendant Smith, were annoyed, bothered, and/or uncomfortable with Mr. Pryor’s continued
advocacy, and wished to retaliate against Mr. Pryor, Defendants abruptly decided that Mr. Pryor
was somehow ineligible for further volunteering or coaching opportunities with DPS.
Defendants’ actions were clearly in retaliation for Mr. Pryor engaging in constitutionally
protected speech.
DPS retaliatorily, falsely claims that Mr. Pryor sent threatening messages to DPS
employees.
78. In the Ban Letter, DPS claims Mr. Pryor allegedly sent threatening messages to
“DPS employees.” Apparently in an attempt to support that claim, DPS included a screen shot of
a message Mr. Pryor exchanged with a community member—not a DPS employee. The
community member is a White male who also sharply criticizes DPS and members of DPS BOE.
17
In fact, the community member has stated that BOE Vice President, Defendant Anderson (a
Black man), should “kill himself” and that he should be castrated. DPS did not ban the
community member (a White man) for making those comments about Defendant Anderson.
79. In addition to issuing the Ban Letter, DPS sent a cryptic, defamatory email to the
parents and students at the STEAM Academy, insinuating that Mr. Pryor was somehow not
creating a safe and welcoming environment for students at the STEAM Academy. DPS’s
defamatory email informed the STEAM Academy stakeholders that Mr. Pryor would not be
allowed to access the STEAM Academy building as a school founder.
80. Defendant Marrero, Defendant Thompson, and Defendant Smith are DPS’s “new
leadership” who conspired to issue the Ban Letter on Mr. Pryor in retaliation for Mr. Pryor
publicly criticizing them and engaging in his First Amendment free speech rights.
81. In light of the BOE’s policy governance model, Defendant Marrero is the final
and ultimate decision maker for any and all operational decisions for DPS. Defendant Marrero
deliberately banned Mr. Pryor in response to Mr. Pryor’s protected speech about Defendant
Marrero on Facebook, during public comment, and on media outlets.
82. Defendant Smith is second in command to Defendant Marrero. When Defendant
Smith was hired as DPS’ Deputy Superintendent, he began speaking negatively about Mr. Pryor
to Superintendent Marrero. Defendant Marrero then started ignoring Mr. Pryor and referring Mr.
Pryor to speak with Defendant Smith.
83. Defendant Smith refused to assist and support Mr. Pryor and the STEAM
Academy. After Mr. Pryor began publicly criticizing Defendant Smith and other public officials
18
on social media and during public comments, Defendant Smith joined Defendant Marrero in
retaliating against Mr. Pryor by arranging for the Ban Letter to be issued.
84. Defendant Thompson is part of Defendant Marrero’s staff, and Defendant
Marrero is Defendant Thompson’s direct supervisor.
85. Mr. Pryor also criticized Defendant Thompson on Facebook. Defendant
Thompson then conspired with Defendant Smith and Defendant Marrero in retaliating against
Mr. Pryor by conducting a baseless investigation, monitoring Mr. Pryor’s Facebook page,
writing the Ban Letter, and arranging for the Ban Letter to be served on Mr. Pryor at his personal
residence.
86. DPS’ BOE is the governing body for DPS and is the employer for Defendant
Marrero. DPS’ BOE enacted policies that allow its sole employee, Superintendent Marrero, to
make any and all operational decisions for DPS without the BOE’s direct and specific oversight
and approval.
87. DPS’ BOE has failed to train and supervise Defendant Marrero, Defendant
Thompson, and Defendant Smith on what policy governance entails and how Defendant
Marrero, Defendant Thompson, and Defendant Smith should lawfully operate under the policy
governance model so as to not infringe on any individuals’ constitutional rights.
88. As a result of its policy, practice and custom of not directly supervising Defendant
Marrero, DPS’s BOE tacitly authorized Defendant Marrero, Defendant Thompson, and
Defendant Smith in their decision to issue the Ban Letter, which resulted in a constitutional
deprivation.
DPS engaged in secret and retaliatory investigations of Mr. Pryor because he spoke
critically of DPS and its officials.
19
89. The Ban Letter also revealed that, unbeknownst to Mr. Pryor, DPS had conducted
several investigations since 2020 in response to Mr. Pryor’s advocacy. Other than one
investigation concerning a DPS Regional Instructional Superintendent, DPS never informed Mr.
Pryor of any complaint or investigation brought against him until DPS issued the Ban Letter on
October 18, 2022, nor did DPS inform Mr. Pryor about any results from the investigations.
90. Nevertheless, DPS banned Mr. Pryor from all DPS property and programs
without giving Mr. Pryor notice and an opportunity to be heard in violation of Mr. Pryor’s due
process rights.
91. Nothing about Mr. Pryor’s Facebook posts constitute harassing, bullying,
threatening, or intimidating behavior as DPS claims in its Ban Letter. Instead, the Facebook
posts illustrate Mr. Pryor’s advocacy and efforts to inform community about Defendants’, DPS
employees’, and DPS BOE members’ conduct, just as Mr. Pryor had done for the past five years.
92. Indeed, Mr. Pryor is a taxpaying homeowner who resides in the City and County
of Denver. Mr. Pryor has a constitutionally protected right to use his Facebook page and attend
BOE meetings to criticize Defendants and DPS’s public employees, even if the criticism was
sharp or included curse words.
DPS and its officials continue their campaign of retaliation against Mr. Pryor by
moving the STEAM academy.
93. On December 9, 2022, Defendant Marrero and DPS staff arranged for Shakira
Abney-Wisdom (Founding Principal of the Robert F. Smith STEAM Academy) to tour Barrett
Elementary for the placement of the STEAM Academy without involving or informing the
founders and while Mr. Pryor was (a) banned from DPS, (b) unable to be present on any DPS
20
property, and (c) in the federal court hearing for the preliminary injunction associated with this
case. The STEAM Academy was specifically designed to be located in the FNE of Denver so
that students would not need to travel outside of their neighborhood to attend a high quality
school. Barrett Elementary is not equipped for high school students and is extremely far away
from the FNE, which is where most of the current students who attend and who would like to
attend the STEAM academy reside. Barrett Elementary is also the school DPS created in the
1960s to stop the Black students from crossing Colorado Blvd, which was a central issue in the
Keyes v. School District No. 1 case that desegregated Denver’s public schools.
94. Defendant Marrero told Ms. Abney Wisdom not to disclose the fact that he was
having her view the facility nor the fact that he had decided to relocate STEAM academy to
Barrett Elementary.
95. DPS never informed the community about the new proposed location for the
school. DPS never gathered community input or spoke with parents about the proposed new
location before holding the vote to move the school.
96. On December 14, 2022, Mr. Pryor learned from Mr. Abney-Wisdom that DPS
was voting on December 15, 2022, to move the STEAM academy to Barrett Elementary. As
articulated above, Mr. Pryor had been previously advocating for that the STEAM academy
should be moved to a building that had appropriate facilities. As outlined above however, the
Barrett Elementary location was problematic for a number of reasons. Mr. Pryor was outraged
that the vote was happening without any input from the school’s founders, the community, and
the parents and students at the STEAM academy.
21
97. Despite the fact that Mr. Pryor was a founder of the school, and that he was one of
the most vocal advocates for a suitable building for the school, DPS moved the school without
his input and purposefully did so in the middle of the preliminary injunction hearing in this
matter. DPS officials knew that, by holding the vote on the new location of the school during the
preliminary injunction hearing in this matter, Mr. Pryor could not participate in the decision, or
appropriately organize the community to advocate for or against the new location.
98. Mr. Pryor knew that the proposed new location of the STEAM academy would
ensure that most, if not all, of the current students could not continue to attend the school. DPS
purposefully moved the school so far away from its current location (to a location that would
require significant travel time for most of the students who were currently attending the STEAM
academy) to ensure that the STEAM academy would lose enrollment.
99. After Mr. Pryor learned that the STEAM academy would be moved without his,
or the community’s, input, he contacted several BOE members, including Defendant Anderson,
and asked them why they were considering moving the STEAM Academy out of the FNE and
across town to Barrett Elementary School. During those calls, Mr. Pryor raised his voice, but he
never threatened any of the BOE Members. He told each of them that they should have never
run for office and that he would see to it that they did not get re-elected to their seats.
100. Prior to this call, Mr. Pryor and Defendant Anderson had worked closely in
communicating about needs for schools, including the STEAM Academy, and they were friendly
members of the community who also previously advocated together before Defendant Anderson
became a board member. Defendant Anderson heard Mr. Pryor’s vow that he would work
against Defendant Anderson’s election and decided to use his position to silence Mr. Pryor.
22
Defendant Anderson knew that Mr. Pryor had an influential voice in the community and that if
he was advocating against Defendant Anderson’s re-election, that there was a real threat that
Defendant Anderson would lose his seat.
101. The next day, December 15, 2022, the DPS BOE voted to move the STEAM
academy. Defendant Marrero convinced the DPS BOE that Ms. Abney-Wisdom approved the
relocation to Barrett Elementary, which was not true. Mr. Pryor was in the preliminary injunction
hearing and could not make his voice heard at the vote. Defendant Marrero recommended that
DPS Board of Education vote to relocate the STEAM Academy out of FNE and across town to
Barrett Elementary School without speaking to students, parents, or founders like Mr. Pryor
(who have always been active in making decisions about the school and are actively involved in
the day-to-day operations of the school).
102. Even after DPS voted to move the STEAM academy, there was no email sent to
parents and community members informing them of the decision. DPS has not communicated
with the STEAM academy, its students, or families about the relocation, even though School
Choice and Enrollment has concluded.
103. DPS’s decision to hold the vote without any input from a school’s founder, or the
community, was unprecedented. The lack of precedent reveals the true reason for DPS’s decision
to hold the vote on the new location of the STEAM academy in the middle of the preliminary
injunction hearing: the retaliate against Mr. Pryor for speaking out and to ensure that he could
not advocate regarding the newly proposed location.
104. Further revealing that the timing of the vote to move the STEAM Academy was
meant to retaliate against Mr. Pryor and prevent him from speaking out about it, DPS did not
23
take any action to determine how students who currently attend the STEAM academy could
arrange for transportation to the new location. It is standard for DPS to make these arrangements
before deciding where, and when, to move a school. The fact that DPS held the vote without
meeting this requirement demonstrates that the decision as to when to hold the vote was
retaliatory.
105. Since the decision to move the STEAM academy, DPS has further retaliated by
refusing to allow Mr. Pryor, and other the founders or families of the STEAM Academy, to view
and tour Barrett Elementary until after the School Choice and Enrollment period ended. DPS has
also retaliatorily failed to provide any information to the leadership, families, or founders
(including Mr. Pryor) regarding the relocation.
106. Finally, since the decision to move the STEAM academy, DPS has further
retaliated by failing to notify parents of the relocation or to provide any information to parents,
founders or leadership during school choice and enrollment.
This Court enters a preliminary injunction against Defendant DPS.
107. In December of 2022, this Court heard six days of testimony outlining the
Defendants’ campaign of retaliation against Mr. Pryor.
108. On December 23, 2022, this Court entered a preliminary injunction against
Defendants DPS, Marrero, and Smith enjoining them from enforcing the terms of the Ban Letter
or from taking any other retaliatory action against Mr. Pryor, his family, or the STEAM
Academy for pursuing this lawsuit.
109. In its order, this Court went out of its way to analyze the issues in the manner
most deferential to Defendants’ concerns, explicitly applying “the more stringent standard
24
preferred by the Defendants for the purposes of this Order,” as though Mr. Pryor were a DPS
employee rather than the unpaid volunteer that he is. See Order, 22. But even under the more
stringent Garcetti/Pickering test preferred by Defendants, the Court appropriately determined
that (1) nothing in the ample record supported the conclusion that Mr. Pryor’s speech at issue in
the case was made pursuant to any official duties he had as a DPS volunteer; (2) that Mr. Pryor’s
relevant speech was undoubtedly on matters of public concern because it was directed at
revealing official shortcomings in the public school system and pushing administrators to do
better; (3) that Mr. Pryor’s weighty free speech interests outweigh DPS’s interest as an
employer; and (4) that Mr. Pryor’s speech was a motivating factor in Defendants’ treatment of
him.
110. A theme of Defendants’ case at the preliminary injunction hearing was Mr.
Pryor’s alleged failure to act with civility and professionalism. Defendants repeatedly argued that
Mr. Pryor’s speech must be stifled because he is seeking to hold Defendants accountable to the
community in ways that make them uncomfortable. Defendants’ own witnesses, however,
conceded that Mr. Pryor’s speech could only be construed as threatening the jobs of public
employees and that the only threat Mr. Pryor posed was to the professional reputation of public
officials. Standards of civility and professionalism have been used as tools of discrimination and
to silence opposition. Defendants used these tools of discrimination against Mr. Pryor through
the Ban Letter and through their tone-policing at the preliminary injunction hearing.
DPS and its officials continue their campaign of retaliation against Mr. Pryor by
instituting legally baseless protection order proceedings against him.
111. In January of 2023, Mr. Pryor and Defendant Anderson both had offices in the
shared office spaces within 12000 E. 47th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80239. Defendant
25
Anderson, at the time, worked for Struggle of Love, an organization that had office space in the
building. Mr. Pryor also works for an organization, Denver Metro Community Impact, that has
offices in the same building.
112. Prior to January 20, 2023, Mr. Pryor published a Facebook post that publicly
criticized Defendant Anderson for focusing on himself instead of students. Defendant Anderson
published a post in response indicating he did not take kindly to this criticism and that he would
never work with Mr. Pryor again.
113. Mr. Pryor would regularly walk down the hallway to the Struggle of Love offices
to speak with Defendant Anderson and other members of the organization. Mr. Pryor would
speak to them about shared issues in their advocacy work.
114. On January 20, 2023, Mr. Pryor walked down the hall to speak with Defendant
Anderson about the decision to move the STEAM academy and his communications with the
principal of the STEAM academy. Immediately when Mr. Pryor ask Defendant Anderson when
the last time was that he spoke to the principal of the STEAM academy, Defendant Anderson got
extremely defensive.
115. At the time, the DPS BOE was leading people in the community to believe that
the principal of the STEAM academy had approved the move. However, the principal of the
STEAM academy had not approved the move, did not have the authority to approve the move,
had never even spoken with Defendant Anderson about the move.
116. After Mr. Pryor pressed Defendant Anderson, Defendant Anderson jumped up
from his chair. Defendant Anderson yelled at Mr. Pryor “I’m not going to be your bitch” and
continued cursing at Mr. Pryor.
26
117. In response, Mr. Pryor began to yell criticisms at Defendant Anderson.
118. At no point did Mr. Pryor and Defendant Anderson come closer than ten feet
apart.
119. During the exchange, one of Defendant Anderson’s co-workers was standing near
Mr. Pryor and another co-worker was sitting in his office, which is located just a few doors down
from Defendant Anderson’s office.
120. After Mr. Pryor and Defendant Anderson started arguing, Defendant Anderson’s
boss, Joel Hodge, was in between them.
121. Eventually, Mr. Pryor went outside with Mr. Hodge and spoke with him.
122. At no point did Mr. Pryor threaten Defendant Anderson. Mr. Pryor never touched
Defendant Anderson. Mr. Pryor simply was critical of the conduct of Defendant Anderson and
the DPS BOE.
123. Defendant Anderson then worked with DPS General Counsel, Defendant
Thompson, to prepare a baseless petition for temporary protection order against Mr. Pryor. The
entire DPS BOE delegated final policymaking authority to Defendant Thompson to author the
baseless temporary protection order against Mr. Pryor.
124. Four days later, on January 24, 2023, Mr. Pryor was served with a temporary
protection order that prohibited him from contacting Defendant Anderson. Mr. Pryor was served
with the temporary protection order as he attempted to enter the building for public comment in
front of the DPS BOE. The DPS head of security eventually let him come in to speak at public
comment, but only after moving the podium over thirty feet away from Defendant Anderson.
When other people who were there for the DPS BOE meeting asked why the podium had been
27
moved, DPS officials told them it was because there was a protection order against Mr. Pryor.
DPS officials also told members of the media who were present that the podium had been moved
because of the protection order against Mr. Pryor.
125. In the application for the protection order, Defendant Thompson and Defendant
Anderson admitted that Mr. Pryor was speaking to Defendant Anderson about the decision to
move the STEAM academy. Additionally, both Defendant Anderson and Defendant Thompson
admitted that Mr. Pryor was speaking to Defendant Anderson in his capacity as a member of the
DPS BOE. Defendant Anderson and Defendant Thompson included the phone call that Mr.
Pryor made to Defendant Anderson on December 15, 2022, where Mr. Pryor was advocating
against moving the STEAM academy, as alleged evidence to justify the protection order.
Obviously, none of the actions by Mr. Pryor justified the issuance of a protection order; they
were First Amendment-protected free speech and petitioning activity.
126. Defendant Thompson and Defendant Anderson specifically requested that Mr.
Pryor be banned from attending the DPS BOE meetings and speaking at public comment by
requesting that Mr. Pryor be ordered to stay at least 500 yards from Defendant Anderson at DPS
BOE meetings. This request, which was rightly rejected by the judge at the preliminary hearing,
belies the true purpose of the protection order proceedings in this federal court action: they were
instituted by Defendant Thompson, Defendant Anderson, and DPS to further retaliate against
Mr. Pryor for his First Amendment activity and to silence him.
127. Defendants instituted the civil protection order proceedings in an attempt to
circumvent this Court’s preliminary injunction order. The civil protection order proceedings
were pre-meditated. Defendant Thompson mused about instituting civil protection order
28
proceedings against Mr. Pryor during the preliminary injunction hearing in December of 2022,
and including the incident where Mr. Pryor called Defendant Anderson (among other DPS BOE
members) on December 14, 2022, in the petition.
128. On February 21, 2023, a permanent protection order hearing was held.
Demonstrating that the petition was filed for an improper purpose and was part of a concerted
effort by Defendants to retaliate against and silence Mr. Pryor, the entire DPS BOE (except for
Carrie Olsen) and Defendant Marrero were in attendance, and Defendant Anderson was
represented by Defendant Thompson during the hearing. After Defendant Anderson presented
his case, Mr. Pryor moved for a directed verdict. Denver County Court Judge Kerri Lombardi
granted Mr. Pryor’s motion for a directed verdict and denied the permanent protection order.
Defendant Anderson’s and Defendant Thompson’s application for a protection order was without
merit. This is further evidence that the protection order proceedings were baseless, retaliatory,
and meant to silence Mr. Pryor’s First Amendment-protected free speech and petitioning activity.
129. Defendants used the legally baseless protection order against Mr. Pryor to again
engage in racist tone-policing. Defendants again used Mr. Pryor’s passionate advocacy to
attempt paint him as an angry Black man, as they had done previously through the Ban Letter
and as they have customarily done in the past when Black administrators, teachers, parents, and
students speak out against DPS.
DPS has a long history of customary systemic racism and discrimination.
130. DPS has a long history of systemic racism and discrimination.
131. A qualitative research study, issued by Dr. Sharon R. Bailey, titled “An
Examination Of Student And Educator Experiences In Denver Public Schools Through The
29
Voices Of African-American Teachers And Administrators,” (“the Study”) found that since the
end of busing, Denver schools have become more segregated by race and poverty (though the
trend line has flattened over the last 10 years), and quality schools are not distributed equally
throughout the city.
132. Black students remain at the bottom of the ladders of student achievement and
opportunity in DPS to this date.
133. The Study found that DPS through bias, charter and specialty schools were
disconnected from the needs of students of color.
134. The Study found that students of color are not accepted as intelligent and that
their robust personalities and challenging of authority were viewed as negative dispositions by
White teachers.
135. The Study found that the content and programming of charters and other “focus”
schools are not meeting the needs of diverse students and that more of the culture and heritage of
these students needs to be included in the curriculum at every level.
136. The Study found that DPS has a lack of qualified, diverse, culturally competent
teachers and Black role models. Just 4 percent of the teachers in DPS were Black at the time of
the Study, and since they are dispersed throughout the city, many are the only Black teacher at
their school. Black teachers within DPS have difficulty securing positions and advancement.
Black teachers feel that their ideas are not valued, especially in struggling schools. Importantly,
the Study found that Black teachers feel under attack on a daily basis, and their voices are not
heard. The Study also found that Black teachers felt as though their voices go unheard with DPS
administrators and that DPS has failed to implement culturally relevant pedagogy.
30
137. It also found that there was disproportionate discipline, including suspensions and
expulsions, of Black students. White students with similar offenses who are not disciplined as
harshly as Black students. Students of color in DPS are three times as likely as white students to
get in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. Black students in Denver
Public Schools are nearly seven times as likely to be suspended in-school, nearly seven times as
likely to be suspended out-of-school and more than seven times as likely to be expelled as
compared to their White counterparts.
138. Black students comprise 13.8% of DPS students and 83.3% of the DPS student
population are students of color. However, 74.4% of the teaching workforce is White, and
majority female. DPS, at the time of the Study, had 241 Black teachers that comprise 4% of the
total teacher workforce of 5,948.
139. The Study found that even when attempts were made to initiate programs
specifically designed to help Black students, interest and follow-through by DPS was noticeably
weak. This has resulted in a glaring neglect to specifically focus on the needs of Black children
within DPS. Mr. Pryor was raising these concerns when he was subjected to discriminatory and
retaliatory treatment by DPS.
140. The dominant themes that emerged from the Study were that there was significant
institutional racism within DPS, Black teachers and administrators were not valued as
professionals, and that DPS treated Black teachers and administrators as “angry Black” men and
women. Black employees reported not have a “voice” at DPS. More than 90 percent of those
interviewed for the Study said institutional racism exists in DPS.
31
141. Defendants’ treatment of Mr. Pryor is consistent with the custom, pattern, and
practice of DPS treating any Black teacher or administrator who dares to raise concerns as an
angry Black man or woman. DPS’s actions, which painted Mr. Pryor simply as an angry Black
man, were a continuation of its discrimination. DPS claimed that Mr. Pryor failed to act with
civility and professionalism when, in reality, he was simply advocating passionately. Standards
of civility and professionalism have been used as tools of discrimination and to silence
opposition, both within DPS and more broadly within society. DPS employed these tools of
racial oppression against Mr. Pryor initially through the Ban Letter, then through the protection
order proceedings.
142. Tellingly, Defendants did not take similar actions against a similarly situated
White community member who made threatening comments toward Defendant Anderson.
Defendants did not ban the community member (a White man) for making those comments about
Defendant Anderson. DPS, Defendant Thompson, and Defendant Anderson did not institute a
baseless civil protection order proceeding against the White community member. These
discriminatory actions, which were undertaken pursuant to the well-established customs and
practices, caused a violation of Mr. Pryor’s rights under the United States Constitution.
143. Another example of DPS’s discrimination in action is its treatment of Tisha Lee.
Tisha Lee was a fierce advocate for her students, and particularly students of color, at Emily
Griffith Technical College for a decade and a half. In 2019, while she was Director of Student
Services, the position of Executive Director (“ED”) of the college opened. She believed that she
had a strong case to make to lead the school and was encouraged to apply by the outgoing ED. In
a competitive application and interview process, it turned out that she did—a panel of
32
thoughtfully pre-selected stakeholders in Emily Griffith Technical College ranked her as one of
two finalists based on objective criteria, and she was scheduled for a final interview. However,
before Ms. Lee was able to state her case to the Superintendent of DPS in that final interview,
her interview was cancelled without explanation. Ms. Lee did not know it at the time, but an
unqualified White woman (who had been ranked lower than Ms. Lee by the interview panel) had
been substituted in her stead. A panelist during Ms. Lee’s interview process heard another
panelist make racist comments about Lee and her candidacy and had objected to those comments
on the spot. When the panelist later learned that Ms. Lee had not advanced to the final interview,
despite the panel’s rankings of her as a finalist, she told Lee what had happened. Having learned
of the racist comments, Ms. Lee filed a Charge of discrimination against DPS and a lawsuit. Ms.
Lee’s lawsuit survived summary judgment through an order authored by Judge William J.
Martínez. The discrimination against Ms. Lee is emblematic of the discrimination that DPS
customarily deploys against those who advocate for Black students and is another example that
informs their discriminatory actions against Mr. Pryor.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Violation
Free Speech
Plaintiff Against All Defendants
136. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
137. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under the color of
law.
138. Plaintiff was engaged in First Amendment-protected speech as outlined above.
33
139. Plaintiff’s speech was on a matter of public concern and did not violate any law.
140. By taking the actions outlined above, Defendants chilled Plaintiff from exercising
his First Amendment rights.
141. Defendants’ actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
exercise his/her/their First Amendment rights.
142. Defendants’ actions in issuing the Ban Letter and instituting the protection order
proceedings were a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s speech.
143. Defendants’ actions were a content-and/or viewpoint-based restriction on
Plaintiff’s speech.
144. Plaintiff’s speech occurred at traditional public fora for free speech.
145. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent other Defendants from violating
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
146. Defendants engaged in this conduct intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly,
maliciously, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
147. Defendants’ actions were in accordance with Defendant DPS’ customs, policies,
practices, and training.
148. Defendant DPS has a custom, practice, and policy of tolerating violations of the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution related to Plaintiff.
149. Defendant DPS’s customs, policies, and/or practices were the moving force
behind Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
150. Final policymakers for Defendant DPS authorized the actions that violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
34
151. Defendants’ actions and/or omissions caused, directly and proximately, Plaintiff
to suffer damages. The acts and inactions of Defendants caused Plaintiff’s damages in that he
was prevented from speaking freely on a matter of public concern, among other injuries,
damages, and losses.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment Violation
Right To Petition
Plaintiff Against All Defendants
forth herein.
law.
154. Plaintiff was engaged in First Amendment-protected petitioning activity by
speaking at DPS BOE meetings and engaging directly with DPS BOE members.
155. Plaintiff’s petitioning activity was on a matter of public concern and did not
violate any law.
his First Amendment rights.
proceedings were a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s petitioning activity.
Plaintiff’s petitioning activity.
35
160. Plaintiff’s petitioning activity occurred at traditional public fora for free speech.
163. Defendants’ actions were in accordance with the customs, policies, practices, and
training of Defendant DPS.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Against Defendants
forth herein.
36
law.
170. Plaintiff was engaged in First Amendment-protected speech.
171. Plaintiff’s speech and petitioning activity was on a matter of public concern.
172. Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s First Amendment-protected activity with
retaliation.
173. Defendants’ retaliatory actions were substantially motivated by Plaintiff’s
exercise of his First Amendment rights.
174. Defendants’ retaliatory actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from
engaging in First Amendment-protected activity.
175. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff of
which reasonable persons in Defendants’ position knew or should have known.
37
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 10
Freedom Of Speech
Plaintiff Against Defendant DPS
forth herein.
184. The Free Speech Clause to the Colorado Constitution provides that “[n]o law shall
be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish
whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits
and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the
direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 10.
185. The free speech rights protected by Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 10 are more
expansive than those protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
186. Plaintiff’s speech was on a matter of public concern and did not violate any law.
his free speech rights.
proceedings were a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s speech.
38
Plaintiff’s speech.
190. Plaintiff’s speech occurred at traditional public fora for free speech.
Plaintiff’s free speech rights.
194. Defendant DPS has a custom, practice, and policy of tolerating free speech
violations related to Plaintiff.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 24
Right To Petition
forth herein.
198. The Petition Clause to the Colorado Constitution provides that “[t]he people have
the right peaceably to assemble for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the
39
powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or remonstrance.” Colo. Const. Art.
II, Section 24.
199. The rights protected by Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 24 are more expansive than
those protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
200. Plaintiff was engaged in protected petitioning activity by speaking at DPS BOE
meetings and engaging directly with DPS BOE members.
201. Plaintiff’s petitioning activity was on a matter of public concern and did not
violate any law.
his right to petition.
proceedings were a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s petitioning activity.
Plaintiff’s petitioning activity.
206. Plaintiff’s petitioning activity occurred at traditional public fora for free speech.
Plaintiff’s right to petition.
40
right to petition related to Plaintiff.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment — Malicious Prosecution
Plaintiff Against Defendants DPS, Marrero, Anderson, and Thompson
213. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set
forth herein.
214. Defendants instituted legally baseless protection order proceedings against
Plaintiff.
215. Defendants’ institution of legal proceedings against Plaintiff was meritless and
unsupported by probable cause.
216. Defendants’ judicial action against Plaintiff ultimately terminated in Plaintiff’s
favor.
217. Defendants acted with malice.
218. Defendants’ misuse of the legal process was so egregious that it deprived Plaintiff
of his constitutional rights.
41
219. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained-of conduct
because they violated clearly established rights belonging to Plaintiff of which a reasonable
person in Defendant’s position knew or should have known.
United States Constitution related to Plaintiff.
was subjected to a malicious prosecution, among other injuries, damages, and losses.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fourteenth Amendment – Denial of Equal Protection
Plaintiff Against Defendants
224. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth herein.
225. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established
constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination and to enjoy the equal protection of the
laws.
226. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to retaliate against
him as described above. Defendants acted with the intent or purpose of depriving Plaintiff of the
equal protection and benefits of the law, and equal privileges and immunities under the law, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
42
227. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably—and with much more unreasonable
force—than his similarly situated White counterparts, wholly or in part because he was Black.
228. Defendants acted or intentionally failed to act with an intent or purpose to
discriminate against Plaintiff based upon his race.
229. There was no rational basis for Defendants’ discriminatory actions and inactions,
let alone a purpose narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
230. DPS’s history of discrimination provides evidence of discriminatory intent. DPS’s
clear pattern of disproportionate use of excessive force against Black people is unexplainable on
grounds other than race.
231. Defendants intentionally, willfully, unreasonably, and wantonly took retaliatory
actions against Plaintiff wholly or in part because of his race.
232. Defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable considering the facts and
circumstances confronting them.
233. Defendants engaged in these actions or inactions intentionally, willfully,
maliciously, and wantonly, showing deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of
Plaintiff’s federally protected constitutional rights.
234. DPS has a custom and practice of condoning and perpetuating discrimination
against Black individuals as described above.
43
was subjected to discriminatory treatment, among other injuries, damages, and losses.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Title VI
Discrimination
237. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
238. Title VI provides that no person, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin,
shall be excluded from participation, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
239. Defendant received federal financial assistance.
240. Defendant’s officials and employees specifically targeted and retaliated against
Plaintiff on the basis of his race, color, and/or national origin.
241. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to retaliate against
him as described above. Defendants acted with the intent or purpose of depriving Plaintiff of the
equal protection and benefits of the law, and equal privileges and immunities under the law.
242. Plaintiff was treated worse than similarly situated White counterparts.
243. DPS’s history of discrimination provides evidence of discriminatory intent. DPS’s
clear pattern of disproportionate use of excessive force against Black people is unexplainable on
grounds other than race.
44
245. Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged by Defendant’s violations of his
rights under Title IV.
PRAYER FOR RELEIF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Pryor respectfully requests the following relief:
a. All appropriate relief at law and equity;
b. Declaratory relief;
c. Injunctive relief;
d. Actual economic damages as established at trial;
e. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to those for past and future
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, physical and mental pain, humiliation, fear,
anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of liberty, privacy, and sense of security
and individual dignity, and other non-pecuniary losses;
f. Punitive damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be determined
at trial;
g. Issuance of an Order mandating appropriate equitable relief;
h. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
i. Attorney’s fees and costs; and
j. Such further relief as justice requires.
Dated: March 6, 2023.
Respectfully Submitted,
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
s/ Andy McNulty
____________________________________
45
Mari Newman
Andy McNulty
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 571-1000
mnewman@kln-law.com
amcnulty@kln-law.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
46

76 - Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

76 - Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-02886-JLK Document 76 Filed 03/06/23 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 1:22-cv-02886-JLK

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 d/b/a DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

President Auon’tai Anderson, and General Counsel Aaron Thompson (collectively

against Black students, educators, and leaders.

damage his reputation.

5. Defendants continued to retaliate against Mr. Pryor by instituting a baseless

prohibiting further retaliation by Defendants.

6. Defendants’ unlawful retaliation was (and continues to be) clearly designed to

silence Mr. Pryor and it violated his Constitutional rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

business in the District of Colorado.

Smith is being sued in his official and individual capacities.

Anderson is being sued in his official and individual capacities.

sued in his official and individual capacities.

education justice within DPS.

Warriors Football team, the only regional program in the country 1.

benefits students of all colors and races.

level the playing field for DPS students in FNE Denver.

Warriors won a 5A State Championship in 2020.

community members across the Denver metropolitan area.

continue searching for a long-term facility.

32. However, unfortunately, DPS’ Choice department recklessly misidentified the

as the new principal to lead MHS.

talented Black educators.

for MHS or any other school within DPS.

the pre-scheduled game against FNE Warriors.

take any corrective action against Ms. Lynch or anyone at MHS.

create a schedule for the MHS Warriors’ freshman team.

leadership was continuing to harm DPS students.

who is a public employee who works for Westminster Public Schools.

and ensuring students’ needs were met.

students a hot lunch.

supposed to satisfy before DPS could commit to providing it a new facility.

STEAM Academy. The conversation became heated.

Blacks” were happy with him.

limited to, DPS’ actions in:

constitutionally protected work created by Black female students;

b. placing a disproportionate number of Black male students in Affective Needs centers

without justification or testing;

classroom space, for the STEAM Academy;

d. failing to provide hot, healthy lunches to students at the STEAM Academy;

false requirements such as performance and enrollment while spending

$40,000,000.00 to fund more affluent and non-minority school communities without

those same requirements;

term solution for the STEAM Academy’s facility placement; and

students and educators.

they listened to Mr. Pryor’s public comments.

predominantly students of color.

school environment at the STEAM Academy.

Ban Letter to Mr. Pryor.

63. In addition, Defendant Marrero sent an inconsiderate email to the DPS

sparked more outrage amongst community members.

unconstitutional actions in banning Mr. Pryor from DPS.

silence Mr. Pryor.

68. Importantly, DPS’s Policy KFA-R specifically required Defendants to engage in

Mr. Pryor as required under DPS’ policies.

media outlets and to families at STEAM Academy.

the community to believe.

allowed to access the STEAM Academy building as a school founder.

Marrero on Facebook, during public comment, and on media outlets.

82. Defendant Smith is second in command to Defendant Marrero. When Defendant