policy nor do they demand reinstatement to their former positions. They claim the relief sought under the state constitution is in the form of a purging of the negative entries, evaluations and other documents contained in their personnel files. Clearly, the relief sought is remedial rather than prophylactic. In Bock, Plaintiffs sought prevention of future violations of their free speech rights. Here, Plaintiffs seek relief for alleged past violation of their free speech rights which resulted in entries in their records which they wish to have expunged. They cite no authority for the proposition that a claim for relief in the form of expungement of records is available under Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. See Saum v. Widnall, 912 F.Supp. 1384, 1387 (D.Colo.1996) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, I find the Complaint fails
holding declaratory relief is inappropriate where the constitutional injury has already occurred and there is no threat of future harm holding that  the threat of future harm not yet realized is not enough  holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence recognizing that a case is ripe for determination if injury has occurred or is likely to occur the threat of harm must be direct and immediate rather than conjectural hypothetical or remote