The Craig police officer who shot a man in April is named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit against officers who allegedly used deadly force to run over a Craig man with a vehicle in April 2023, according to a court order filed in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Daulton Caudell was identified by Craig police as the officer who shot a man at 730 Ashley Road in Craig on April 26, according to a news release from the Craig Police Department.

As of Friday afternoon, the victim’s name and condition remain unknown, and no arrests have been made in relation to the incident.

Caudell — who has five years of service with the Craig Police Department and is currently on administrative leave as the investigation of the shooting continues — is also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in federal court May 1.

That lawsuit alleges Caudell, along with Craig officer Tracy Mendoza and Moffat County Sheriff deputies Chip McIntyre, Kurtis Luster, Nate Businger, Brandon Montoya and Matt Hammer, used excessive use of force in a September 2023 incident.

At around 7:05 a.m. on Sept. 22, 2023, law enforcement officers received reports that a man was allegedly “carrying a rifle on foot” through Craig. At around 7:11 a.m., Mendoza “identified” the man as Tanner Sholes, a Craig resident at the time, according to court documents filed in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

McIntyre, Businger, Hammer, Investigator Dave Simone, Luster, Mendoza and Commander Doug Conrad responded to the incident.

According to the court order, Sholes was not allowed to possess a firearm at the time of the incident due to three protection orders filed against him.

Law enforcement officers alleged seeing Sholes “obstructing traffic,” but there’s “no video footage” that corroborates the claims, according to the court documents, which added that Sholes traveled over four miles on public roadways as the officers followed him, passing residences “without any incident or any threat of harm.”

“(Sholes) had not removed the rifle or made any threatening gestures,” the court order states.

Responding officers, including McIntyre, Businger, Hammer, Luster, Montoya, Mendoza and Caudell travelled in two separate vehicles to contact Sholes. McIntyre and Businger were driving the vehicles, according to the court order.

The court document states that the officers’ plan was for McIntyre to “issue verbal commands” to Sholes and for Businger to “drive behind (Sholes), and to drive his vehicle into (Sholes) depending on (Sholes’s) compliance.”

Officers allegedly chose to hit Sholes with their vehicle based on his criminal history, unknown mental state, failure to comply with orders and the “possibility that (Sholes) could force the officers into an altercation whereby they would need to use deadly force,” states the court order.

The court order adds that Sholes’s girlfriend had previously stated that Sholes might attempt to commit suicide by drawing officers into an altercation.

Sholes did not respond to commands to “drop to the ground,” states the court order. 

About 20 seconds after the commands were issued, Businger allegedly accelerated his SUV, equipped with “large metal push bars,” toward Sholes at around 20-30 mph, according to the court document. Sholes was reportedly thrown into the air and landed in a nearby ditch.

The court order states that after officers restrained Sholes in the ditch, they discovered that the rifle was a BB gun.

Officers then “forced (Sholes) into the transport vehicle, despite his cries of pain and transported him to the jail where his injuries were left untreated,” states the court document.

According to the court order, Sholes was diagnosed with a complete ACL rupture, a complex tear of the lateral meniscus, a horizontal tear of the medial meniscus, a Grade 1 MCL injury, rotator cuff tendinopathy and bicep tendinopathy with partial tear at Poudre Valley Hospital.

On April 7, 2025, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott Varholak denied a motion filed by the defense to dismiss two of the claims made against the defendants.

The judge did approve a motion to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims, which stated that the city of Craig and other municipal and county entities were liable for the injuries caused by the officers’ deadly use of force.

With the federal lawsuit set to proceed, details surrounding Caudell’s alleged shooting of an unnamed individual on April 26 remain unclear.

Craig police announced Caudell as the officer who shot the victim and said that he is currently on administrative leave as the investigation proceeds.

“Shots were exchanged between the subject and law enforcement,” a press release from Craig police stated last weekend. “The subject was struck during the exchange, and officers immediately rendered medical aid until paramedics arrived on scene.”

Repeated requests for information related to the victim and their condition, along with the circumstances of the incident, have been denied by the Craig Police Department and the 14th Judicial District Attorney’s Office due to the investigation’s ongoing status.

The victim’s name and condition remain unknown as of Friday afternoon.

“The (officer involved shooting) of April 26 remains under active investigation and legal assessment by the (14^th Judicial District’s Critical Response Team) as to all aspects: Both as to the officer’s discharge of a firearm, and the conduct of the subject, no conclusions have been made,” said 14th Judicial District Attorney Matt Karzen in an email sent Wednesday.

“In this current active and ongoing status of the investigation, disclosure of additional information at this time would be contrary to the public’s interest in maintaining the investigative integrity of this process and respecting, as possible, the privacy interests and reputations of all involved parties including involved civilians,” wrote Karzen.

“Thank you for your inquiry,” the district attorney added. “Once the investigation is complete, and the matter has been evaluated and final decisions made, the CIRT will issue a press release, and depending on the outcome, additional information may be disclosable at that time.”

A series of questions related to the April 26 shooting were sent to Craig city officials on Thursday. The city said the newspaper should expect responses on Monday.