-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02315-RPM

 

MICHAEL VAN DE WEGHE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL CHAMBERS, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District, in her official capacity;

JAY WILLIFORD, Deputy District Attorney, 18th Judicial District, in his personal capacity;

DETECTIVE GREGORY HOWDEN, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, in his personal

capacity; and

DEPUTY JASON WALTER, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, in his personal capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

The plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed February 14, 2013, alleges the following facts: 

During the course of their romantic relationship in 2004, Michael Van De Weghe (“the

plaintiff” or “Van De Weghe”) loaned Laura Moore (“Moore”) more than $7,000, evidenced

mainly by two checks; one dated May 3, 2004 for $5,000, and the other dated July 12, 2004 for

$2,000. 

Van De Weghe wrote the word “loan” on the memo lines of the checks before he gave

them to Moore, but Moore removed the word “loan” from the checks before she deposited them. 

Moore gave Van De Weghe a ring as security for the loan. He still has it. 

After their relationship ended, Van De Weghe went to Moore’s house on May 23, 2005,

to discuss repayment of the loan. When he appeared at her door, Moore called the Douglas

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
-2-

County Sheriff’s Department and made a complaint of domestic violence. Van De Weghe was

charged with various misdemeanors (trespass and various harassment offenses). That criminal

case was designated as Case Number 2005M1153, in the County Court for Douglas County,

Colorado. It was tried to a jury on March 20-21, 2006, and Van De Weghe was acquitted of all

charges. 

Moore testified at trial that the two checks were loans and were not gifts or money

received for a sale of goods. 

In 2008, Van De Weghe filed a complaint in Small Claims Court for recovery of the debt

from Moore. The plaintiff’s claim against Moore was tried in Small Claims Court on November

17, 2008. Prior to the trial, the plaintiff “restored” the word “loan” on the memo lines of the

canceled checks, and during the trial he introduced those canceled checks into evidence. At the

conclusion of the trial, the Small Claims Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and

against Moore in the amount of $7,000. 

On November 17, 2008, Moore filed a motion in the Small Claims Court, seeking 

“Reconsideration of Evidence” and alleging that the plaintiff had submitted altered checks as

evidence and had committed perjury. That motion was denied. The judgment was not appealed. 

On November 17, 2008, Moore went to the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and reported

that the plaintiff had lied to the Small Claims Court and tampered with evidence by writing the

word “loan” on the memo line of the checks before he submitted them as evidence. 

Deputies Gregory Howden (“Howden”) and Jason Walter (“Walter”) investigated

Moore’s complaint.

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
-3-

In February 2009, Deputy Howden called the plaintiff to discuss Moore’s allegations.

During that conversation, the plaintiff denied that he did anything wrong and told Deputy

Howden that it was Moore who had tampered with the documents by removing the word “loan”

from the checks. The plaintiff told Deputy Howden that Moore owed still him the money and

that Moore had sent him an email in which she admitted that the $2,000 check was a loan. The

plaintiff also told Deputy Howden that Moore had admitted under oath that the checks were for a

loan and not a gift. The plaintiff told Deputy Howden that Moore had made other false

allegations against him in the past, describing the 2005 misdemeanor domestic violence charges

and his 2006 acquittal in that case.

Van De Weghe suggested that Deputy Howden should contact the defense attorney in the

misdemeanor case, who faxed Deputy Howden a copy of the email in which Moore admitted that

the $2,000 check was a loan which she had not repaid. 

The plaintiff alleges “upon information and belief” that Deputy Howden and/or Deputy

Walter conferred with Deputy District Attorney Jay Williford (“Williford”) regarding whether

there was probable cause to charge the plaintiff with crimes. 

On or about July 24, 2009, Deputy Howden prepared and signed an Arrest Affidavit,

charging the plaintiff with the offenses of theft and tampering with evidence. The plaintiff

alleges “upon information and belief” that Deputy Howden conferred with Deputy District

Attorney Williford regarding the preparation of this Affidavit and that Williford approved it. 

The plaintiff was arrested on September 3, 2009. 

Deputy District Attorney Williford filed criminal charges against the plaintiff in the

action designated as People of the State of Colorado v. Van De Weghe, Case No. 2009CR520 in

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
-4-

the District Court for Douglas County, Colorado, charging the plaintiff with the offense of

tampering with evidence. Van De Weghe pleaded not guilty. 

Deputy District Attorney Williford amended the charges to add felony counts of theft,

perjury, violation of bail bond conditions and attempt to influence a public servant (i.e., the

Small Claims Court Judge). 

Deputy Howden and Deputy District Attorney Williford knew that Van De Weghe was a

former Denver police officer would be in danger if sentenced to prison.

On March 8, 2011, the trial of People of the State of Colorado v. Van De Weghe, Case

No. 2009CR520 began in the District Court for Douglas County, Colorado. When Moore was

confronted with her March 21 and 22, 2006 testimony from the plaintiff’s misdemeanor trial,

Williford abruptly dismissed the charges, admitting that he could not prove the charges beyond a

reasonable doubt due to that earlier testimony. 

Van De Weghe filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming false arrest and

malicious prosecution in violation of the protections afforded by the Fourth, Fifth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

Carol Chambers is named as a defendant in her official capacity as the District Attorney

for the Eighteenth Judicial District on the claim that her policies and practices induced her 

deputy district attorneys “to overcharge defendants, charge defendants with bogus charges

without probable cause, overcharge for discovery to induce defendants to not pay for discovery,

withhold exculpatory evidence in order to induce a quick plea bargain, fail to conduct any

adequate investigation into probable cause and otherwise bully defendants and defense attorneys

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
-5-

into plea bargains on questionable or bogus charges in order to obtain the bounty.” Am. Compl.

¶ 16. 

This claim is dismissed because an elected district attorney is a state official for whom

the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity. Rozek v. Topolnicki, 865 F.2d 1154, 1158 (10th

Cir. 1989); Romero v. Boulder County DA's Office, 87 Fed.Appx. 696, 698 (10th Cir. 2004)

(unpublished); Bragg v. Office of the District Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial District, 704

F.Supp.2d 1032 (D.Colo. 2009); Musick v. Pickering, 2005 WL 2739028, *2 (D.Colo. Oct. 24,

2005). 

Deputy District Attorney Williford has prosecutorial immunity for his filings with the

court. The plaintiff seeks to avoid that result by alleging that he participated in a faulty

investigation that was done in reckless disregard of the truth. The plaintiff asks for discovery to

support this conclusory allegation. There is nothing to suggest that discovery would provide

evidence that Williford acted outside his role as a deputy district attorney.

Van De Weghe seeks to recover from the Sheriff’s Deputies Howden and Walter because

their investigation was conducted disregarding the exculpatory information available to them. 

These defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. At best, the allegations made indicate a

careless and incomplete investigation which does not give rise to a constitutional violation under

any clearly established precedent. 

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that Defendant Howden’s and Defendant Walter’s Motion to Dismiss [4] is

granted and the claims against them are dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); and it is

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
-6-

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Carol Chambers’ motion to dismiss [14] is

granted and the claims against her are dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jay Williford’s motion to dismiss [19] is granted

and the claims against him are dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 

Dated: February 22, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 39 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6