Man who roomed with murderer at University of Colorado rests case following four-day dissection of staff response

A communications student sued the University of Colorado Colorado Springs for negligence after one of his dormmates murdered the other in 2024.COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CN) — In the weeks before 25-year-old University of Colorado Colorado Springs student Nicholas Jordan fatally shot his dorm mate and a friend on Feb. 16, 2024, multiple UCCS departments received reports about his excessive marijuana use, poor hygiene and an incident in which he propositioned an underage student.Before moving into the dorm, Jordan had been evicted from off-campus housing for threatening other residents. Nearly a month before the shooting, he also threatened to kill his roommate if he reported him.In his final semester, 24-year-old Samuel Knopp repeatedly reported Jordan’s threats and an overflowing “biohazard” toilet to his resident assistant, who assured him they would be separated.After dropping out, Jordan returned to the dorm early on Feb. 16, 2024, and fatally shot Knopp and Knopp’s friend, 26-year-old Celie Rain Montgomery, who was staying overnight but was not a student.Montgomery left behind two children, ages 10 and 8.After a jury convicted Jordan of the two murders, a Colorado Springs judge sentenced him last year to two consecutive life terms.On behalf of her daughter, Melody Montgomery sued the university on July 16, 2025, over claims of willful and wanton conduct, negligence and wrongful death. Giancarlo Argueta, who shared the dorm pod with Knopp and Jordan, filed a separate suit in January.The university moved to dismiss both cases under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. A four-day Trinity hearing this week will determine whether the university and several officials, including the dean of students and campus police chief, can face the civil claims.Special Assistant Attorney General Megan Clark argued Montgomery and Argueta cannot show the individual defendants knew Jordan was likely to become violent before the shootings.“Plaintiffs want to conduct this with the benefit of hindsight,” Clark said during opening arguments. “Evidence will show defendants were acting, but it’s with the benefit of hindsight plaintiffs say they didn’t do enough.”Clark said, “The only question for the court is the willful and wanton standard in the Colorado Government Immunity Act.”Over four days of testimony this week, Fourth Judicial District Judge Jennifer Viehman heard from university staff who saw the name “Nicholas Jordan” before the murder, but failed to connect the pieces until after. The dissection of events revealed death by a thousand cuts rather than one major wrong turn.“If I thought there was a danger, I would not be sitting in my office,” said Benek Altayli, who was the UCCS Executive Director of the Wellness Center and a member of the CARE Team at the time of the incident.The Campus Assessment, Response & Evaluation (CARE) Team fields reports of “concerns.” CARE Team director Altayli testified she relied on police reports to determine next steps and saw no reason to remove Jordan from campus because he had not been charged with a crime.Jennifer Sobanet, the university’s chancellor in 2024, testified she did not work directly with students and learned of Jordan’s case only after the attack.Plaintiffs’ attorney Jared Mazzei challenged witnesses’ characterization of the university’s decentralized chain of responsibility.“We’ve had a lot of defendants testify and consistently they’re coming up and saying ‘I don’t really deal with this,’ so who would be responsible for dealing with these behaviors?” asked Mazzei who practices with Ramos Law in Northglenn, Colorado.Sobanet said no one person could be held responsible.“There isn’t one person, there’s a group of people across the ecosystem of the campus,” Sobanet said. “It’s impossible to take what we know now and to apply it back then, with bits and pieces of information that were not always known to the people.”Molly Kinne, who was the UCCS director of residence life in 2024, said she offered new housing to Knopp and couldn’t force him to move when he declined. As for Jordan’s pot use, she said, “I interact with a lot of students who use substances, and I wouldn’t know if he was a substance abuse problem."Another staffer said she thought the ire was mutual and would peter out once the semester started.“There was mutual harassment, neither party chose to change their living conditions, so I saw no need for immediate concern,” said Amanda Allee, the vice chancellor who oversaw the CARE Team. “As all parties chose to stay in the room, there seemed to be no immediate safety concerns.”In lieu of closing arguments, Viehman instructed the parties to file briefs in the coming weeks. Although she will determine whether to dismiss the case or send it to a jury, she did not indicate when or how she would reach a decision.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads