Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glover v. Bicha

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 18, 2015

JOHN T. GLOVER III, Plaintiff,


LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff John T. Glover III currently resides in Boulder, Colorado. Plaintiff, acting pro se, initiated this action by submitting to the Court a seventy-five page Complaint with 436 attachments. On October 6, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Plaintiff to amend the Complaint and comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and to either pay the $400 filing fee or in the alternative submit an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit.

On November 20, 2014, Plaintiff submitted an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and filed an Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted Plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and directed him to file a Second and Final Amended Complaint. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Gallagher directed Plaintiff to clarify who he is suing and to state facts in support of his alleged constitutional rights violations. Plaintiff was told that the Amended Complaint, although reduced to thirty pages, remains vague, conclusory, and verbose, with repeated references to unexplained attachments. Plaintiff again was directed to amend and comply with Rule 8 by alleging simple and concise claims for relief that state the specific rights, which have been violated, and the specific acts by each named Defendant who committed the violation. Plaintiff was told not to present the description of his claims in a long, chronological recitation of facts.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second and Final Verified Complaint. The Complaint, including attachments, is 464 pages long. Plaintiff's claims are rambling and repetitive, and include unnecessary information in the format of a long, chronological narrative of events. Plaintiff, therefore, again has failed to comply with Rule 8 and the Court's two orders to amend, ECF Nos. 5 and 12. Nonetheless, the Court will proceed to determine the basis of Plaintiff's claims and address the merits as follows.

First, the Court notes Plaintiff was employed by Imagine!, a residential service provider organization, ECF No. 16-10 at 2 and 16-1 at 39, and worked as a residential live-in counselor at the Charles Smart Home in Boulder, where he cared for individuals with developmental disabilities, ECF No. 16-10 at 2. Plaintiff appears to challenge his termination from his position as a result of an investigation, in which it was determined that Plaintiff psychologically abused, neglected, and violated HIPPA and privacy rights of a resident at the Charles Smart Home. ECF No. 16-1 at 39-40. Plaintiff has challenged this termination in a state court case, which is identified and discussed below. Plaintiff now seeks to challenge the termination in this Court based on First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and state court regulations and statutes.

II. Claims Presented

In the Jurisdiction section of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that this action is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff then provides a thirteen-page overview that he titles, "Other Factors Giving Rise to This Lawsuit." ECF No. 16 at 8-20. In the overview, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the Seventh Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that beginning on August 16, 2012, through March 24, 2014, on nine different occasions, he provided information to Defendants Reggie Bicha, Susan Birch, Joscelyn Gay, Thomas Miller, and Barbara Ramsey regarding the mishandling of MANE (Mistreatment, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation) investigations and in particular sought redress of the results of the investigation that affected him. ECF No. 16 at 4.

Plaintiff also states that Defendants Bicha, Birch, Gay, John and Jane Does, Mark Emery, Mia Sanchez-O'Dell, and Leslie Rothman failed to take corrective action pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 27-10.5 and "2 CCR 503-1" to address the "deficient" MANE investigations, and in failing to do so violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection rights. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further states that there is no grievance provision for "Direct Care Workers" who are adversely affected by mishandled MANE investigations. Id.

Plaintiff asks that this Court review his state court case, John T. Glover III v. Developmental Disabilities Center (Imagine!), Thomas Stroup and Glen Spencer, 2012cv124. Id. at 6 and 26. He also refers to two cases that he pursued in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Glover v. Morrissey, et al., No. 03-11633-MAP (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2004); Glover v. Comerford, et al., No. 03-30213 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2004). Both of the Massachusetts cases involve Plaintiff's attempts to report a co-workers alleged mistreatment of persons with developmental disabilities, and both cases were dismissed for failure to "state specific facts from which to infer illegal motive." Glover, No. 03-cv-30213, ECF No. 19, at 12.

Plaintiff also contends that on August 27, 2012, he sent an email to Defendant Bicha regarding Mr. Stroup's MANE investigations and that on August 30, September 5, November 30, 2012 and August 23, 2013, he spoke with Thomas Miller, Director of Program Quality of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division for Developmental Disabilities. Id. at 16. Plaintiff further asserts that subsequently Defendants Bicha, Birch, Gay, John and Jane Does placed a "directive" on Thomas Miller to deny any further review of the MANE investigations, id. at 17. Plaintiff asserts that he then received a response on October 20, 2012, from Defendant Gay that Plaintiff's information had been reviewed but further review of the MANE investigation for purposes of an employment action was beyond the scope of related statutes and regulations. Id. at 17. Because Defendants Bicha, Martinez, Gay, and Birch's refused to conduct a quality review of Mr. Stroup's MANE investigations, Plaintiff asserts he sent a grievance letter to Defendant Gay on January 14, 2013. Id. at 18.

Finally, Plaintiff contends Defendants have conspired to obstruct his right to redress his grievances through legal and legislative means in violation of his First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 19-20. In particular, Plaintiff asserts Imagine! and Mr. Spencer blatantly misstated numerous facts at Plaintiff's pretrial proceedings and during the November 4-6, 2013 jury trial that resulted in the 20th Judicial District applying an incorrect legal interpretation and the dismissal of his state case. Id. at 19-20.

Following Plaintiff's thirteen-page statement of factors giving rise to this case, Plaintiff sets forth the following three claims. In Claim One, Plaintiff states that the acts and omissions of Defendants Bicha, Gay, Birch, John and Jane Does Emery, Rothman, and Sanchez-O'Dell, which allegedly were conducted under color of state law, (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 27-10.5 and 2 C.C.R. 503-1), and under the laws regulating the Colorado Judicial Branch of Government, were the proximate and legal cause of the deprivation of his First, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 21. In Claim Two, Plaintiff asserts all Defendants knew that Defendant Sanchez-O'Dell and other Imagine! witnesses committed perjury at his Unemployment Appeal Hearings on June 22, 2011, and during the subsequent trial testimony given by Defendant Sanchez-O'Dell on November 4, 2013. Id. at 23. He further contends that the continued use of the MANE investigation report was wrong because Direct Care Staff, including Plaintiff, had not been trained that they were prohibited from opening resident's mail and from using a cell phone while driving residents. Id. In Claim Three, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants, state entities, and other members of the Colorado legal community have conspired to obstruct his constitutional rights to bring to the public attention the mishandled MANE investigations and to take legal action.

Plaintiff seeks money damages. Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 16, at 28. He also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In particular, Plaintiff requests a redress of the mishandled MANE investigations conducted by Imagine!, based on various Colorado statutes and Defendants', (Bicha, Birch, Gay, Emery, Sanchez-O'Dell, and Rothman), failure to address the improper MANE investigation. ECF No. 16 and 26-29. Plaintiff also requests that this Court review his state court case, Case No. 2012cv124 and mandate the U.S. Department of Human Services to guarantee the Colorado Department of Human Services and Health Care Policy and Financing is providing correct oversight of the programs it manages. Plaintiff further asks that this Court conduct oversight over state agencies to (1) make changes to the MANE investigation process; (2) implement a grievance procedure for Direct Care ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.