Lockhart v. Van Beek et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-00991-PAB-TPO
ESTATE OF IAN DAVID LOCKHART, by and through its personal representative, David
Lockhart, and
DAVID LOCKHART, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SHERIFF JAMES VAN BEEK, in his official and individual capacities,
CAPTAIN GREGORY VAN WYK, in his official and individual capacities,
DEPUTY ANTHONY VALDEZ, in his official and individual capacities,
DEPUTY ANDREW VIGIL, in his official and individual capacities,
EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Your Hope Center,
TERESA HAYNES, in her individual capacity,
TAYLOR WALKER, in her individual capacity,
VICKY BIBLER, in her individual capacity,
CATHY SCHNEIDER, in her individual capacity,
STACIE FREUDENBERG, in her individual capacity, and
JENNIFER KIM, in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Eight and Tenth Claims for Relief without Prejudice [Docket No. 104]. The motion has
been jointly filed by plaintiffs Estate of Ian David Lockhart and David Lockhart and by
defendants Anthony Valdez and Andrew Vigil. Docket No. 104 at 1.
Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, Docket No. 88, is the operative complaint.
Count VIII of the operative complaint is a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Case No. 1:24-cv-00991-PAB-TPO Document 143 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
Eagle County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Valdez for a violation of decedent David
Lockhart’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 44-46. Count X of the operative
complaint is a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eagle County Sheriff’s
Deputy Andrew Vigil for a violation of decedent David Lockhart’s Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Id. at 46-48. The complaint also alleges the same Fourteenth
Amendment violation by Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek in his official capacity.
Id. at 32-34.
A previous version of the complaint alleged the same Fourteenth Amendment
violation by Undersheriff Dan Loya in his official capacity. Docket No. 36 at 34-36. In a
February 28, 2025 order, the Court granted Undersheriff Loya’s motion to dismiss that
claim. Docket No. 79 at 12-14. The Court found that, given the official-capacity claim
against Sheriff Van Beek, an official-capacity claim against another member of the
same municipal entity was duplicative. Id. Noting that ruling, the moving parties ask the
Court to dismiss the official-capacity claims against Deputies Valdez and Vigil. See
Docket No. 104 at 1-2. For the reasons explained in its February 28, 2025 order, the
Court agrees that the official-capacity claims against Deputies Valdez and Vigil are
duplicative and will strike them as potentially confusing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). See Docket No. 79 at 12-14.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Eight and Tenth Claims for
Relief without Prejudice [Docket No. 104] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Count VIII against Anthony Valdez is DISMISSED without
prejudice. It is further
Case No. 1:24-cv-00991-PAB-TPO Document 143 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that Count X against Andrew Vigil is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED February 26, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Philip A. Brimmer___________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-00991-PAB-TPO Document 143 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3