Rio Arriba Sheriff James Lujan filed a response to the civil rights violation complaint against himself and former deputy Jeremy Barnes over Barnes’ May tasing of an Española Valley High School student with special needs, claiming Barnes’ use of force was justified and denying that he failed to properly train deputies to operate the Taser X2 model used in the incident.
Deputies were first trained on the model, which replaced the X26 model earlier this year, in June after Deputy Leon Gallegos allegedly tased a Rio Arriba County Detention Center guard in the groin.
Lujan’s response, filed Nov. 18 through the law firm of Brennan and Sullivan, addressed the claims of the civil rights violation line by line, skipping over a block of claims which it stated appeared to be exclusively against Barnes. It stated Lujan is “without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations” in response to several claims regarding the factual workings of the taser, including whether it delivers electricity when penetrating just clothing.
The family’s complaint, filed in September through the firm Kennedy, Kennedy, and Ives alongside a tort claim against the County, alleged Lujan exercised reckless disregard for public safety by placing Barnes in the High School as a school resource officer without properly training him for the role or on his equipment.
Lujan denied that Barnes continued to cycle the taser once the student was on the ground, that he used the taser to punish the student, that his actions were deliberately indifferent to the amount of electricity being used, or that the child’s risk of serious injury or death were greatly increased. He denied the damages that were claimed by the student, who had been taken to a school office for allegedly possessing cannabis before Barnes arrived and, in the course of arresting him, tased the child.
Lujan’s response requested the case be dismissed and he be granted attorney’s fees, and a concurrent filing demanded a jury trial. He also claimed qualified immunity, a legal doctrine which protects government employees from civil litigation unless their actions clearly violated statutory or constitutional rights. Case law has established the immunity can protect government employees who violated the law if they could reasonably believe their actions were lawful.
As of Tuesday online court records showed no response from Barnes, who pleaded not guilty to criminal charges for the same incident in his first court appearance Monday. Records indicated neither Barnes nor Lujan have been succesfully served with the civil complaint officially.
The portion of the civil rights complaint unaddressed by Lujan’s response included claims, many backed by attached records, of:
• Barnes being fired from the Village of Milan Police Department in 2007 after multiple complaints from coworkers and a prisoner about harassing and violent behavior;
• Threats and violence against coworkers in the Metropolitan Detention Center in 2009 resulting in his resignation;
• Allegations from a former girlfriend that Barnes was physically and verbally abusive toward herself and her sons, alleging he held her down and hit her with a belt and would chase her son around with a taser;
• Barnes being fired from the Grants Police Department;
• Barnes’ resignation from the Clayton Police Department after being found to have violated a number of Department policies; and
• A 2016 civil rights violation complaint against Barnes alleging excessive use of force with a taser.
The complaint states Lujan knew or should have known about many of the terminations or resignations. His response did not address these claims other than to neither admit nor deny them because they were directed at Barnes.
Lujan declined to comment further on pending litigation.