Input:
Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 1 of 13

7
United States District Court Southern District of Iowa Central Division

FILED
SEP 2 2 2003 SCOLUETRHKE,RUN.SD. IDSITSRc~CTTOCOUF1T
FIOWA

Jake Voshell, Jeff Winters, Burt Smith, Louie Jales, Scotty Flemming, Dave Baber, Joe Ervig, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillen, Mike Joslin, Clayton Gregory, Rich Whitney, Thomas Keith, James Hall, and Kris Johnson,
Plaintiffs,
- VS-
John Spence, John Mathis, Ron G. Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charels Harper, and Dave De Grange
Defendants,

Civil No.
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Damages

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 2 of 13
8
I.
"Previous Lawsuits"
(1) Plaintiffs are in disciplinary detention and are being denied access to their legal materials necessary to address this issue at this time for this court.
II.
"Place of Present Confinement"
(2) All plaintiffs are currently confined in the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison, IA.
III.
"Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies"
(3) No Administrative remedies were persuaded do to the fact, disciplinary and classification proceedings cannot be challenged under the Department of Corrections Grievance Program.
IV.
"Parties"
Plaintiffs
(4) Jake Voshell, # 803644, Iowa State Penitentiary, PO Box 316, Fort Madison, IA 52627 Jeff Winters #1045267 Burt Smith #1098924 Louie Jales #087897 Scotty Flemming # 1028521 Dave Baber #803256 Joe Ewig #808517 Bryan Keller # 1080959 Wayne Quillan #804605

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 3 of 13
9
Mike Joslin #1129552 Clayton Gregory #1139525 Rick Whitney #1050408 Thomas Keith #808596 James Hall #806039 and Kris Johnson #1016548 are all confined at the same address as plaintiff Voshell, except Scotty Flemming he has discharged his sentence. His address is c/o 201 SE Jackson St., Des Moines IA 50315.
Defendants
(5) John W. Spence, is the Executive Officer II for the Iowa Department of Corrections Central Office, 420 Watson Powell JR. Way, Des Moines IA 50309
John Mathis, Warden Ron G. Welder, Executive Assistant Ruth Stockbridge, Records Administrator James Burton, Internal Affairs Investigator Louis Galloway, Internal Affairs Investigator Charles Harper, Administrative Law Judge, and Dave De Grange, Investigator, each of which reside at the same address as the plaintiffs.
V.
"Statement of Claims"
"Introductions"
(6) Plaintiffs advance four (4) legal claims against Defendants. As such the plaintiffs will address these legal claims separately below - and discuss each Defendants' personal involvement separately below.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 4 of 13
10
"Legal Claim One"
(7) Everyone of the Plaintiffs' are members ofthe Religious faith, the Church of the New Song (CONS). Defendants have and are subjecting plaintiffs to "religious discrimination and persection" by removing every single one of the (CONS) members off the General population yard at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), and locking them up in disciplinary segregation and other forms of segregation absent any misconduct or adequate reasons for doing so. The Defendants singled out every CONS member for locked and disciplinary status and did so to:
a. Close the CONS down; and b. Create falsified administrative records to introduce before
pending judicial proceedings, before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding litigation on the CONS and c. Create falsified administrative records and statistics to use before Judicial Administrative and Legislative proceedings to:
1. Seek/obtain favorable decisions based on the alleged needs to control gang conduct in the Iowa Department of Corrections.
2. To obtain funding for lockup or control units, additional State employees.
Legal Claim Two
(8) Defendants' and their predecessor's for over two decades have repeatedly attempted to close down the CONS. This is a matter of judicial notice, and should be accepted as such. The most recent attempt was before Federal Judge Pratt in the United States District Court for the Southern District ofIowa.
(9) In and act of retaliation due to the most recent ruling by Judge Pratt, Defendants' retaliated against every single "active" member of the CONS, as well as three (3) people known to be studying to become CONS members, and subjected them to Disciplinary and Administrative segregation "absent absolutely and misconduct" on the part of the

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 5 of 13
11
plaintiffs' .
(10) "Defendants' made up a gang" calling it the "peckerwoods" or "woods" (A), and then falsely claimed every single member of the CONS was a member of this alleged gang.
(A) Peckerwood or wood is a slang term use to describe a white person, just like "brother" is a slang term used between black men to describe a black man.
(11) Following a lengthy investigation the Defendants placed every single "active" member of CONS and three (3) people studying to become members of CONS on disciplinary report (8) alleging almost every single violation ofthe prison rules (C) alleging every active member of CONS and the three potential members were involved in the whole array of DOC rule violations including killing of another (D).
(12) "Defendant's made up a gang" calling it the peckerwoods or woods, they alleged every single active member and the three (3) potential members of CONS was a member of alleged group and retaliated against every single person by,
(8) Plaintiffs' want it made "very clear" they are not by "this" cause of action advancing a legal challenge to the outcome or disciplinary decision that resulted in disciplinary punishments being imposed against them.
(C) Plaintiffs' were not sanctioned by a disciplinary tribunal for acts of gang misconduct - fact is - they were cleared of acts of gang misconduct. They were found guilty of being members of a nonexistent gang the defendants made up to describe the member of the CONS.
(D) No one has been killed at the Iowa State Penitentiary in approximately ten (10) years. Locking them up in punitive and administrative segregation, as alleged members of a gang, due to the Defendants inability to close down the CONS through the judiciary.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 6 of 13
12
"Legal Claim Three"
(13) Defendants' relied on disciplinary findings that all the plaintiffs' were "gang members" in violation of DOC Rule # 42 (E), "Not that they had engaged in gang related conduct and locked them all up -
(E) DOC Rule IN-V-36, V . N . (Definition of offenses) describes Rule # 42 as follows: 42. Unauthorized Group/Gang Conduct: An offender commits an offense under this subsection when the offender:
(a) Originates, promotes, participates in, recruits for, etc., any unauthorized group, organization, gang, clique, association, etc., or
(b) Communicates involvement in any unauthorized groups through written or verbal means, physical appearance, hand signs, symbols. photographs, association, with others, etc., or
(c) Possesses, creates, reproduces, or transmits any materials related to unauthorized group/gang activities
based upon fact findings that every active member and the five potential members of CONS was/is a peckerwood or wood, and that being a peckerwood or wood - was being a gang member in violation of Rule 42 of the DOC Disciplinary Rules of Substantive Misconduct (F)
(14) Plaintiffs/ state, that to use a slang term unrelated to any gang, by Defendants', to re-title the CONS membership to calling them a gang, and then say that because they are a gang they've violated Rule #42, is "objectionably unreasonable" "interpretation and application oftheir rules to the facts of this case" as defined in Moorman-v-Thalacher, numbers 95 - 2245 and 95 - 2297 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals dated May 14, 1996).

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 7 of 13
13
(15) Plaintiffs' further state - that it si no Rule violation of Rule # 42 "to be a gang" member if you are not involved in gang conduct
(F) There is no gang in ISP called the "peckerwoods or woods". Defendants' created this gang - by saying that because a term used to describe a "white" man was used by CONS members are a gang called the peckerwoods or woods.
(16) Plaintiffs' advance a Constitutional challenge to the Rules and facts of this case as being "objectively unreasonable" in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Legal Claim Four"
(17) From June and to July of2002, Defendants' locked up everyone of the plaintiffs' advancing an array of charges of gang misconduct, (G). Fact Finding made by the ALJ made clear "Not one of the plaintiffs had committed a single act of gang misconduct." Plaintiffs' were declared to be peckerwoods or woods and as such "gang members and solely because they were declared "gang members" they were sanctioned with harsh disciplinary sanction that was a typical and and significant hardship", and singled out for these punishments, "while no other "gangs", that are on fact,
(G) Plaintiff Hall was never alleged to be involved in gang related conduct, yet he was found to have been along with the other CONS members, because he is a CONS member who admits the slang term peckerwood applies to him as a white man.
Clearly documented gangs throughout the entire DOC, nor a single member of any of these other gangs - have been locked up and punished only because they are a gang member.
(18) Plaintiffs' (although not gang members) have been alleged as such, and under Rule 42 have been denied due process and equal protection under the rules contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 8 of 13
14
States Constitution.
Personal Involvement of Defendants' Spence, Mathis, Welder,
Stockbridge, and Harper
(19) Defendants' Spence, Mathis, Welder, and Stockbridge acted as "appellate officers" regarding either the disciplinary or classification proceedings regarding this case and refused or failed to take corrective action regarding, Defendants' Burton, Galloway, Harper and De Grange's conduct of an unconstitutional nature.
(20) Defendant Harper as the ALl failed to take corrective action regarding the unconstitutional conduct of Defendants' Burton, Galloway and Mathis, when he acted in conspiracy with them as set forth below.
(21) Defendants' Burton (H) and Gallaway, acting as investigators "created and assembled a whole array of false charge;!." against all the Plainti lIs as justification to issue them disciplinary reports. Burton and Gallaway's actions were a direct result of directions issued them by Defendant Mathis (and other - at this time - unknown DOC personnel).
(22) Defendants De Grange acting as an investigator failed to take any corrective action against Burton, Gallaway and Mathis when he knew or should have known their conduct to be unconstitutional.
(H) Burton in a case before Federal Judge Donald E. O'Brian was found to have falsified and corrupted an investigation involving i!Ullate George Goff. Burton's unethical conduct as an investigator is a matter of judicial notice and should be accepted as sllch.
IV "Relief Requested"
(23) Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as it concerns all the following:
a). Plaintiffs' have been subject to religious

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 9 of 13
15
uiscrimination and persecution as well as retaliatory treatment by Defendants contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
b). Plaintiffs' have been "retaliated" against by Defendants' because they either are members of a class of CONS members, potential CONS members learning to become CONS members, or parties to parties to Federal Litigation concerns the CONS.
c). Defendants' created falsified investigative and disciplinary records to use to:
1). retaliate against the membership of the CONS;
2). discriminate and persecute the members of the CONS;
3). use of Federal Judicial proceedings against members of the CONS;
4). to remove every member of the CONS from the prisons general population status to close down the CONS;
5). obtain and secure financial and political objectives relative to an alleged DOC gang problem.
d). Defendants' use of disciplinary Rule #42 to impose disciplinary sanctions on Plaintiffs as "alleged" gang members, absent any findings of guilt that plaintiffs' participated in any improper gang related conduct is an "objectively unreasonable" interpretation and application of Defendants' own rules to the facts of this case.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 10 of 13
16
e). Defendants' discriminated, denying Plaintiffs due process and equal protection when they disciplined them for only being "alleged" gang members (absent any improper gang related conduct) - when no other DOC has been or will be subject to such discipline.
(24) Plaintiffs' seek injunctive relief as follows:
a). enjoining Defendants from subjecting the Plaintiff.5 and other members of the CONS from further discriminatory treatment and persecution due to being members of the CONS.
b). enjoining Defendants from any further acts of retaliation against Plaintiffs or the membership or Ihe CONS for seeking legal redress fiom the courts or other First Amendments protected activities.
c). enjoining Defendants from using in any judicial proceeding, administrative or legislative the investigations and disciplinary records falsified by the defendants to reflect any of the following:
I. That Plaintiffs' are an alleged gang called the "peckerwood" or "woods"
2. That the CONS membership is a gang
3. That Defendants require from the legislature or other administrative agencies ofthe states oflowa or Federal Government, additional financial support to combat alleged gang problems in the Iowa Department of Corrections.
d). enjoining Defendants from imposing disciplinary punishments against the plaintiffs'; CONS members

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 11 of 13
17
or any other prisoner's of the Iowa Department of Corrections for alleged violations of DOC Rule #42 "based only on the fact the may be or are a gang member absent evidence to support actual gang misconduct or participation.
e). enjoining Defendants from discriminating against PlaintitTs' and other CONS members - by imposing disciplinary punishments against them for "ONLY BEING ALLEGED GANG MEMBERS" - when no other gangs or their members are being made subject to discipline for the very same reason or under the very same rules and procedures.
25). Plaintiffs' seek compensatory damages in the amount of$500,000.00 from each Defendant to each Plaintiff.
26). Plaintiffs' seek punitive damages in the amount of $1 ,000,000.00 from each Defendant to each Plaintiff.
27). Plaintiffs' seek a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
28). Plaintiffs' seek cost of this action.
29). Plaintiffs' seek appointment oflegal counsel.
30). Plaintiffs' seek any and all further relief as this Court deems just.
Dated: /' -/:?'_ _ _~., 2003.
We the undersigned declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief by our signatures below:
Iowa State Penitentiary PO Box 3\6 Fort Madison, IA 52627

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 12 of 13
18
Notice: See attached page for signatures of all additional Plaintiffs' to this action:

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 09/22/2003 Page 13 of 13

-~

~~----~~---------~-~--

- - - - - ~- --~---~----

-~

~------~---~-~~-~---

- - - ~-~~-~--~------~~

- - - ------------~~~~

~~-----~--

~-- -------~----~-~------~---~-~-~----- -~- ~-

-

- - - - - - - - - - - ~~----~-~---~------~~ ~

-~---

- .---~- -~ ~ -~ ~-- ---~ ~

~-~---- ~

-~--~~ -~---~--~.

-------

- - - - - - --- ~ -~

-~---~- ~

-- - - - -

--- ~-~

- - - ----~-----~-~--

-~~~-----~-----~----------~--

---~

---~ ~--~~~---------

~

--~

~

-----~~-

 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 59 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB ORDER STAYING CASE

On December 2, 2004, the Court entered an order in this case indicating that the outcome of this case will be affected by rulings in Goff, et al. v. Graves, et al. , No. 4:97-cv-90341, a case that concerned the Church of the New Song, also known as CONS.
Iowa Department of Corrections officials have sought court relief with respect to CONS in Wycoff, et al. v. Brewer, et al. , No. 4:05-cv-00068-RP-RAW. On February 18, 2005, the Court in Wycoff scheduled proceedings in that case, including an evidentiary hearing. Because the outcome of the proceedings in Wycoff very likely will impact the continued validity of Plaintiffs’ claims in Voshell, the Court stays the proceedings in Voshell pending the outcome of Wycoff or upon a showing of good cause by the parties to resume proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of February, 2005.

 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs, now represented by counsel, bring this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants wrongfully disciplined them for their involvement in Church of the New Song (CONS). They seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
This case was stayed on February 22, 2005, pending the outcome of Wycoff v. Brewer, No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa) (recaptioned Smith v. Ault). On April 2, 2009, the Honorable Robert W. Pratt entered an order in Smith v. Ault, granting prison officials relief from previous injunctions that allowed inmate members of CONS to exercise their religion equally with other religions and that allowed CONS inmate-ministers to visit segregated CONS inmates.
In light of the ruling in Smith v. Ault, this Court lifted the stay, and Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not file a resistance, and the Court, on its own motion, extended the time for Plaintiffs to resist the motion. To date, Plaintiffs have not resisted the motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmovant must make a sufficient showing on every essential element of its case for which it has the burden of proof at trial.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 2 of 4
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Cont’l Grain Co. v. Frank Seitzinger Storage, Inc., 837 F.2d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 1988). The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleading and by affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The quantum of proof that the nonmoving party must produce is not precisely measurable, but it must be “enough evidence so that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. United States v. City of Columbia, Mo., 914 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1990); Woodsmith Publ’g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir. 1990).
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS The following facts are undisputed or taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are inmates who, during the time relevant to the complaint, were incarcerated at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) in Fort Madison, Iowa. They are Jacob Voshell, Jeff Winters, Burt Smith, Louie Jales, Scott Fleming, David Baber, Joseph Ewig, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillen, Jr., Michael Joslin, Clayton Gregory, Richard Whitney, Thomas Keith, James Hall, and Kristopher Johnson. Defendants are the following correctional staff employed at ISP: John Spence, John Mathes, Ron Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, and Dave DeGrange. For years, members of CONS and prison officials have been at odds over the genuineness of Church of the New Song as a religion. In dissolving the protective injunctions, Judge Pratt agreed with prison officials that some inmates used CONS as a way to violate prison rules prohibiting contraband, violence, and gang activity; and it was no longer equitable to continue giving CONS protected status in light of CONS inmates’ abuse of the decrees. Smith v. Ault,
2

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 3 of 4
No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa) (Order of Apr. 2, 2009, adopting Dec. 5, 2008, R&R, Clerk’s No. 72, and Clerk’s No. 69, at 28-30). The ruling in Smith v. Ault was not appealed.
Plaintiffs in the instant case were disciplined for violating prison rules against gang activity. They allege Defendants’ acts were really in retaliation for their exercise of CONS beliefs. The punishments imposed included loss of good time or earned time, and none of the disciplinary decisions have been overturned. None of the Plaintiffs filed prison grievances that alleged the Defendant prison officials retaliated against them for exercising their religious rights. None of the Plaintiffs sustained physical injuries as a result of the allegations they raise in the complaint.
DISCUSSION Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); (2) Plaintiffs allege no physical injury, a prerequisite to an action for mental or emotional injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); (3) Defendants did not file disciplinary reports against Plaintiffs in retaliation for protected activity; (4) thirteen of the Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot because those inmates are no longer at the prison; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and (6) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. This Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in Smith v. Ault, No. 4:05-cv-00068 (S.D. Iowa), and it adopts Judge Pratt’s ruling that CONS is no longer entitled to protected status in the prison. Plaintiffs state in the complaint that they did not exhaust administrative remedies because they could not challenge their disciplinary and classification proceedings under the prison grievance program. Even assuming this is true, and assuming that not all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, or moot, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation fail. There was some evidence on the record that Plaintiffs violated prison disciplinary rules, and there is no evidence
3

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 67 Filed 07/23/09 Page 4 of 4 on this summary judgment record that retaliation was the motivating factor behind the discipline. See Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1993) (inmate must show that but for protected activity, prison officials would not have acted), cert denied., 512 U.S. 1209 (1994). Based on the undisputed material facts, no reasonable juror could find in Plaintiffs’ favor, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
SUMMARY For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants. This case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of July, 2009.
4

 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 68 Filed 07/24/09 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

Jake Vosell, et al.,

Plaintiff v
John Spence, et al.,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE CASE NUMBER: 4-03-cv-40522

Defendant
JURY VERDICT . This action came before the Court for trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
DECISION BY COURT. This action came before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Date: July 24, 2009

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
_/s_/_D__o_n_n_e_ll_V__a_n_ce________________ By: Deputy Clerk

 Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 66 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JAKE VOSHELL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN SPENCE, et al.,
Defendant.

No. 4:03-cv-40522
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the above-captioned Defendants John Spence, John Mathes, Ron G.
Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, and Dave DeGrange,
by and through undersigned counsel and MOVE for Summary Judgment in this action. In
support thereof, they refer the Court to the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment submitted in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, dismiss this case, and assess costs to the Plaintiff.
THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General of Iowa
/s/ H. LORAINE WALLACE H. LORAINE WALLACE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Assistant Attorney General Special Litigation/Corrections Hoover State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-6670 FAX: (515) 281-4902
Original filed.

Case 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB Document 66 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 2

Copy mailed to:
Mr. Patrick E. Ingram Mears Law Office 209 E. Washington St. Paul-Helen Bldg., Suite 203 Iowa City, IA 52240

Proof of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon each of the persons identified as receiving a copy by delivery in
the following manner on May 22, 2009.

9U.S. Mail 9Hand Delivery 9Federal Express :Electronically

9FAX 9Overnight Courier 9Other

Signature: /s/ H. LORAINE WALLACE

2

 Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 1 of 7
TERMED,1983pr
U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa (Central) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03−cv−40522−JEG−CFB

Voshell, et al v. Spence, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge James E. Gritzner Referred to: Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/22/2003 Date Terminated: 07/24/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jake Voshell

represented by Patrick E Ingram Mears Law Office 209 East Washington Suite 203 Iowa City, IA 52240 319 351 4363 Fax: 351 7911 Email: patingram@mearslawoffice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Scotty Flemming

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeff Winters

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Burt James Smith

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Louie Jales

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David James Baber

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joe Weig

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 2 of 7

Plaintiff Bryan Keller

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wayne Quillan

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mike Joslin

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Clayton Gregory

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rick Whitney

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Keith

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Hall

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kris Johnson

represented by Patrick E Ingram (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant John Spence

represented by H Loraine Wallace IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL −− Des Moines 1305 E WALNUT STREET DES MOINES, IA 50319 515 281 6670 Fax: 515 281 4902 Email: lwallac@ag.state.ia.us

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 3 of 7

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Mathis

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ronald Welder

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ruth Stockbridge Records Administrator

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James R Burton

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Louis Galloway

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Charles Harper

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dave DeGrange

represented by H Loraine Wallace (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/22/2003 09/22/2003
09/22/2003
09/22/2003 11/12/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (cc: pltf(s)). (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
2 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell for appointment of counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
3 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL by plaintiff Jake Voshell (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
REMARK no filing fee or motion for ifp (dv) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
4 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner; Plaintiff shall fill out the forms attached or pay $150.00 (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 4 of 7

11/28/2003 12/08/2003 01/23/2004
02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004
02/04/2004 02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/13/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004

FILING FEE PAID: on 11/24/03 in the amount of $ 50.00, receipt # 68010. (gk) (Entered: 11/28/2003)
FILING FEE PAID: on 12/8/03 in the amount of $ 100.00, receipt # 68133. no amount due (dv) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
5 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner granting motion for appointment of counsel [2−1] Patrick E Ingram; Because the filing fee has been paid, no further money will be withdrawn from the inmates' accounts for the filing fee. Service of process shall issue by mail to defendants and to the AG (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
6 RESPONSE for IFP form by plaintiff Jeff Winters [5−1] re: order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
7 FORM C: CERTIFICATE OF INMATE ACCOUNT AND ASSETS by plaintiff Jeff Winters re [5−1] order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
8 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Jeff Winters re [5−1] order (don) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
9 MAIL Returned [5−1] addressed to defendant John Spence (John Spence is not than employee of ISP. (don) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
10 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
11 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Jake Voshell re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
12 MOTION by plaintiff Dave Baber to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
13 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Dave Baber re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
14 MOTION by plaintiff Mike Joslin to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
15 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Mike Joslin re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
16 MOTION by plaintiff Kris Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
17 FORM C: CERTIFICATE OF INMATE ACCOUNT AND ASSETS by plaintiff Burt James Smith re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
18 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Burt James Smith re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
19 MOTION by plaintiff Burt James Smith to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
20 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Quillan to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
21 MAIL Returned [5−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
22 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner re [9−1] mail; Plaintiffs must immediately provide the Clerk with the correct name and current address for the unserved defendant, if available, so service can be obtained. (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 5 of 7

02/19/2004 02/19/2004
02/25/2004 02/26/2004 02/27/2004 03/01/2004 03/04/2004 03/08/2004
03/09/2004 03/24/2004 03/26/2004 03/29/2004 04/05/2004
04/07/2004
04/22/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004
06/23/2004
06/23/2004 06/28/2004

23 MOTION by plaintiff Bryan Keller to proceed in forma pauperis before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
24 FORM D: AUTHORIZATION TO DEBIT TRUST ACCOUNT TO PAY FEDERAL COURT FILING FEE by plaintiff Bryan Keller re [5−1] order (dv) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
25 LETTER to court from plaintiff Kris Johnson (dv) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
26 LETTER to court from plaintiff Jake Voshell (dv) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
27 MAIL Returned [22−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
28 LETTER to court from plaintiff Dave Baber (dv) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
29 RESPONSE by plaintiff Jeff Winters [22−1] re: order (dv) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
30 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner re [22−1] order; Plaintiffs have sent in an address for John Spence. Service of process shall issue by mail to defendant Spence. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to both Plaintiffs and the Mears Law Office. The Clerk of Court also shall send a complete copy of the file to the Mears Law Office (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
REMARK copy of file sent to John Spence and Mears Law Firm (dv) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
31 MOTION by plaintiff Jake Voshell for preliminary injunction before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
32 ANSWER by defendants complaint [1−1] (dv) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
33 MAIL Returned [30−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
34 MOTION by defendant John Spence, defendant John Mathis, defendant Ronald Welder, defendant Ruth Stockbridge, defendant James R Burton, defendant Louis Galloway, defendant Charles Harper, defendant Dave DeGrange to strike motion for preliminary injunction before Judge James E. Gritzner [31−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (don) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
35 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner denying motion for preliminary injunction [31−1] ; Dispositive Motion ddl set for 8/6/04 (cc: all counsel, all plaintiffs with motion filed 3/24/04) (don) Modified on 04/07/2004 (Entered: 04/07/2004)
36 MAIL Returned [35−2] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
37 MOTION by plaintiff Burt James Smith for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
38 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Burt James Smith in support [37−1] of motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
39 MOTION by defendant to strike motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel before Judge James E. Gritzner [37−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
40 MOTION by defendant to strike memorandum [38−1] before Judge James E. Gritzner (dv) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
41 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner finding the motion to strike memorandum [38−1] [40−1] moot, finding the motion to strike motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel [37−1] moot [39−1] denying motion for temporary restraining order and to waive existing counsel [37−1] see order for specifics...(cc: all counsel) (ld) (Entered: 06/28/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 6 of 7

07/12/2004
07/26/2004 08/24/2004 09/07/2004 09/13/2004 10/21/2004
11/12/2004 11/16/2004
11/22/2004 11/22/2004
11/23/2004 12/02/2004 12/02/2004
12/02/2004 12/02/2004

42 ORDER by Judge James E. Gritzner denying motion to strike motion for preliminary injunction [31−1] [34−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [23−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [20−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [19−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [16−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [14−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [12−1], granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [10−1] (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
43 MAIL Returned [41−1] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming. "Undeliverable as address" (fm) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
44 ORDER ; Jury trial set for 02/14/05 at 9:00 ; Final pretrial cnf (MAG) set for 02/02/05 at 11:00 /s/JRR, Clerk (cc: all counsel) (dv) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
45 MAIL Returned [44−2] addressed to plaintiff Scotty Flemming (dv) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
46 LETTER to court from plaintiff Louie Jales (Joles) (don) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
47 ORDER. Referred to Mag. Judge Bremer to determine if settlement conference should be held and if so to schedule; counsel shall confer and file status report within 30 days of this order indicating whether or not they want the Court to schedule a settlement conference. Entered by Judge James E. Gritzner on 10/21/2004. (nlh) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
48 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Scotty Flemming which included 47 Order, no forwarding address given. (don, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Patrick Ingram for Dave Baber, Scotty Flemming, Clayton Gregory, James Hall, Louie Jales, Kris Johnson, Mike Joslin, Thomas Keith, Bryan Keller, Wayne Quillan, Burt James Smith, Jake Voshell, Joe Weig, Rick Whitney, Jeff Winters. Responses due by 12/3/2004 (don, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
50 STATUS REPORT by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
51 TEXT ORDER Setting Hearing on Plaintiff's counsel's 49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney: Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2004 10:00 AM by telephone conference call placed by counsel for Plaintiff before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 11/22/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
52 RESPONSE to Motion re 49 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Defendants' Resistance to Motion to Withdraw filed by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. Replies due by 12/6/2004. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Hearing held on 12/2/2004 on resisted Motion to Withdraw (#49). Appearing were Pat Ingram for Plaintiffs and Lorraine Wallace for Defendants. Order entered separately. (mlr) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
54 ORDER denying 49 Atty Ingram's Mot. to Withdraw. Deadline for Def. to file status report is 12/7/04. Plaintiffs to contact Atty Ingram no later than 12/31/04 indicating whether they intend to continue as Pl. in this case. A copy of this Order will be mailed to each Plaintiff individually. Trial set for 2/14/05 &FPTC set for 2/2/05 continued and will be reset after status of case is determined. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 12/2/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
55 STATUS REPORT by James R Burton, Dave DeGrange, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, John Mathis, John Spence, Ruth Stockbridge, Ronald Welder. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Jake Voshell by Jake Voshell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (don, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-40522-JEG-CFB As of: 07/12/2013 12:50 AM CDT 7 of 7

12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/20/2004 02/22/2005 04/09/2009 04/27/2009 04/30/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/18/2009
05/19/2009 05/19/2009 05/22/2009
07/23/2009 07/24/2009

57 ORDER denying Plaintiff Baber's request to receive copies of all pleadings. See order for particulars. Entered by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 12/15/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
Trial and Final Pretrial Conference canceled per Order #54 on 12/2/2004. (mlr) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
58 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Scotty Flemming which included 54 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, (don, ) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
59 ORDER STAYING CASE pending outcome of Case No. 4:05−cv−00068−RP−RAW (Wycoff v. Brewer). Entered by Judge James E. Gritzner on 2/22/2005. (nlh) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
60 ORDER FOR STATUS REPORT. Status Report due by 4/27/2009. See order for particulars. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 4/9/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
61 STATUS REPORT by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. (Wallace, H) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
62 STATUS REPORT from the Plaintiff by Jake Voshell. (Ingram, Patrick) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
63 ORDER lifting stay. Parties may file dispositive motions by not later than 5/18/2009/ Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 5/4/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 5/18/2009. Per order 63 . (don) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
64 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. Responses due by 6/4/2009 (Wallace, H) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
65 TEXT ORDER granting 64 unresisted motion for extension of time. Any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 5/22/2009. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 5/19/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 5/22/2009. Per Order 65 . (don, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
66 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Mathis, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge, James R Burton, Louis Galloway, Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, John Spence. Responses due by 6/15/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Appendix pp. 1−66, # 4 Appendix pp. 67−160)(Wallace, H) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants. This case is dismissed. See order for particulars. Signed by Judge James E. Gritzner on 7/23/2009. (nlh) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
68 JUDGMENT in favor of Charles Harper, Dave DeGrange, James R Burton, John Mathis, John Spence, Louis Galloway, Ronald Welder, Ruth Stockbridge against Bryan Keller, Burt James Smith, Clayton Gregory, David James Baber, Jake Voshell, James Hall, Jeff Winters, Joe Weig, Kris Johnson, Louie Jales, Mike Joslin, Rick Whitney, Scotty Flemming, Thomas Keith, Wayne Quillan. Signed by Clerk Marjorie Krahn on 7/24/2009. (don, ) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

Output: Several members of the Church of New Song (CONS) who were inmates in the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison, Iowa, filed a lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against administrative officials of the Iowa Department of Corrections.  In 2009 the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.


Input:
Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00270 GEORGE BACA,
Plaintiff, v. PARKVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and PARKVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff George Baca, by and through his attorneys, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, hereby brings this Complaint against Parkview Medical Center, Inc. and Parkview Health Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Parkview”).
INTRODUCTION 1. Twenty-four years after the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was passed and more than 40 years after Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), Parkview failed to provide sign language interpreters and other accommodations for the deaf father of a critically injured minor, denying him effective communication and deeply exacerbating an already stressful situation.

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

This action arises under the laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred

upon this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for the federal law claims, and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 for the state law claim.

3.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as all of the

events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Colorado.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff George Baca is currently and at all times relevant to this suit has been a

resident of the State of Colorado in Pueblo County. Mr. Baca is an individual with a disability

because he is substantially limited in major life activities, including hearing.

5. Defendants Parkview Medical Center, Inc. and Parkview Health Systems, Inc. are

private, nonprofit corporations one or both of which own, operate, lease and/or lease to a private

hospital, the Parkview Medical Center, which is a place of public accommodation as that term is

used in title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) and the Colorado

Anti-Discrimination Act, COLO. REV. STAT. §24-34-601. On information and belief, both

Parkview Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance as that term is used in Section

504. On information and belief, Parkview Medical Center employs more than 15 people.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff Baca is deaf, and does not understand speech. His first language and

primary mode of communication is American Sign Language.

7. Like many individuals who have been deaf since childhood, Mr. Baca does not

read or write with fluency. American Sign Language, not English, is his native language.

2

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
8. In order to communicate effectively with strangers and/or in situations that call for more than routine language, Mr. Baca requires the services of a qualified sign language interpreter. Specifically, he requires a sign language interpreter in communications relating to medical topics and in conversations involving multiple individuals.
9. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Parkview has known that Mr. Baca is Deaf. 10. On the evening of July 6, 2013, Mr. Baca was notified that his minor daughter was struck by a car and taken by ambulance to Parkview. He arrived at the hospital not long after. 11. In the emergency room lobby, Mr. Baca immediately requested to see his daughter and to be provided a sign language interpreter. No interpreter was provided. 12. On the evening of July 6, for most of July 7, and for the morning of July 8, Mr. Baca repeatedly requested an interpreter to speak with doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff. He was receiving no effective communication concerning what staff were doing and desperately wanted to understand. 13. Mr. Baca requested a sign language interpreter on July 6, 2013. 14. Defendants did not provide an interpreter for Mr. Baca on July 6, 2013. 15. Mr. Baca requested a sign language interpreter on the morning of July 7, 2013. 16. Defendants did not provide an interpreter for Mr. Baca until approximately noon on July 7, 2013. 17. The interpreter Defendants provided to Mr. Baca on July 7, 2013 interpreted for him for approximately two hours.
3

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
18. After the interpreter provided to Mr. Baca on July 7, 2013 left, Defendants did not provide an interpreter for Mr. Baca for the remainder of that day.
19. On the morning of July 8, 2013, medical staff met in Mr. Baca’s daughter’s hospital room to discuss her condition.
20. Mr. Baca again requested an interpreter for this meeting. 21. Parkview did not provide an interpreter for the meeting with medical personnel on the morning of July 8, 2013. 22. Although a sign language interpreter was provided later in the day on July 8, medical personnel did not return to Mr. Baca’s daughter’s room to discuss her condition in the presence of the interpreter. 23. When Mr. Baca arrived at the Emergency Room on the evening of July 6, he was unable to understand what Parkview staff were telling him about his daughter’s condition. The only way the doctor could convey the extent of Mr. Baca’s daughter’s injuries was to pull back the curtain on her room and show Mr. Baca her critical injuries. Without effective communication to convey the context of his daughter’s injuries, this was terrifying for him. 24. Mr. Baca was asked to sign documents pertaining to his daughter’s care. 25. Mr. Baca did not fully understand the documents he was requested to sign because Defendants did not provide a sign language interpreter to assist him. 26. Parkview was on notice that Mr. Baca needed an interpreter both because the need was obvious, and because on a number of occasions during his daughter’s stay, Mr. Baca requested an interpreter.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
27. On two occasions, a nurse attempted to communicate with Mr. Baca in writing about his daughter’s care, the result of which were notes saying, “She doesn’t need surgery,” and “The doctor said he can come back. He is saying he [sic] injury is something that will heel [sic] on its own. We will do a CAT scan in the morning to Double Check.” In response to the former, Mr. Baca wrote – to underscore his need for an interpreter – “don’t matter I must I know everything Because I will take care her when out hospital.” In response to the latter, he wrote, “OK for now Interpreter 24/7!!!!”
28. Parkview either lacks policies and procedures sufficient to ensure timely provision of effective communication or has policies and procedures that are inadequate to ensure this.
29. Parkview denied Mr. Baca access to communication as effective as that available to hearing parents of patients in its health care facilities.
30. The actions above discriminated against Mr. Baca on the basis of his disability. 31. Mr. Baca was harmed by Parkview’s discrimination and failure to make its aids, benefits, and services available to him on nondiscriminatory terms. The discrimination and absence of effective communication, themselves, harmed Mr. Baca. In addition, he suffered emotional harm from the experience of coping with his daughter’s critical injuries without the communication and information essential to any parent in that situation. Throughout the first three days of his daughter’s hospitalization for life-threatening injuries, he felt intensely emotional, helpless, and frustrated. 32. Mr. Baca and his family members have received services at Parkview on multiple occasions and Mr. Baca intends to continue to use Parkview as the principal hospital for himself
5

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
and his family for emergency or inpatient care. Parkview is the only Level II Medical Center in the region where he resides. For these reasons, it is likely that Mr. Baca will in the future be a patient or the companion of a patient receiving medical care at Parkview and, in the absence of the relief requested in this Complaint, likely encounter further illegal discrimination.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 33. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the remainder of this Complaint and in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 34. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal financial assistance such as Parkview. 28 U.S.C. §794. 35. Mr. Baca is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Section 504. 36. Parkview discriminated against Mr. Baca on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulations as more fully described above. Such discrimination includes but is not limited to the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure effective communication and failure to provide aids, benefits and services as effective as those provided to others. 37. Mr. Baca was qualified to participate in Defendants’ aids, benefits, and services within the meaning of Section 504. 38. Defendants denied Mr. Baca access to their aids, benefits, and services solely on the basis of his disability, thereby violating Section 504. 39. Despite the clear provisions of Section 504, Defendants’ knowledge of Mr. Baca’s requests for an interpreter, and its knowledge of Mr. Baca’s deafness and need for
6

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
accommodation, Defendants continued to impose conditions and practices that discriminated against Mr. Baca.
40. Defendants’ actions described in this Complaint were intentional and/or were taken with deliberate indifference to the strong likelihood that pursuit of its questioned policies would likely result in a violation of Mr. Baca’s rights under the ADA and Section 504.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Mr. Baca has suffered damages, including but not limited to pain and suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress.
42. Mr. Baca has been injured and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured and aggrieved by Defendants’ discrimination.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.) 43. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in each of the above paragraphs and remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 44. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by entities such as Defendants who own, operate, lease or lease to places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. 45. Parkview Medical Center is a place of public accommodation as that term is used in title III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). 46. Mr. Baca is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. 47. Defendants discriminated against Mr. Baca on the basis of disability in violation of title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations as more fully described above. Such
7

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
discrimination includes but is not limited to the failure to provide auxiliary aids and services and the failure to provide communication equally effective to that provided to others.
48. Mr. Baca was qualified to participate in Defendants’ goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations within the meaning of title III of the ADA.
49. Defendants denied Mr. Baca services, and otherwise treated him differently on the basis of his disability, thereby violating title III of the ADA.
50. Despite the clear provisions of title III, Defendants’ knowledge of Mr. Baca’s requests for an interpreter, and its knowledge of Mr. Baca’s deafness and need for accommodation, Defendants continued to impose conditions and practices that discriminated against Mr. Baca.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions, and violations alleged above, Mr. Baca has suffered damages including but not limited to pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and impairment of quality of life.
52. Mr. Baca has been injured and aggrieved by and will continue to be injured and aggrieved by Defendants’ discrimination.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.) 53. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in each of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 54. Parkview is a place of public accommodation as defined in C.R.S. § 24-34601(1). 55. C.R.S. § 24-34-601(2) provides in relevant part that “[i]t is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an
8

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
individual or a group, because of disability . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . .”
56. By, among other things, failing to provide effective communication services to Mr. Baca on July 6, 7, 8 and at other times while his daughter was receiving services at Parkview, despite their knowledge that he was Deaf, and despite his repeated requests for interpreter services, Defendants discriminated against Mr. Baca by denying him the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the Center in violation of C.R.S. § 24-34-601.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction; 2. That this Court declare the actions of Defendants described in this Complaint to
be in violation of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504, and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act;
3. That this Court enter an injunction ordering Defendants to cease discrimination on the basis of disability against deaf patients and companions of patients, including but not limited to Mr. Baca, by (among other things) establishing a procedure to ensure effective communication with persons who are deaf or hard of hearing;
4. That this Court award Mr. Baca compensatory damages pursuant to Section 504 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act;
5. That this Court award Mr. Baca and/or his attorneys his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
9

Case 1:15-cv-00270-RBJ Document 1 Filed 02/09/15 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
6. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper, and equitable. Dated this 9th day of February, 2015. Respectfully submitted, s/ Amy F. Robertson ___________________________________ Amy F. Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 757-7901 arobertson@creeclaw.org Attorney for Plaintiff
10

 Case: 1:15-cv-270 As of: 10/13/2016 12:23 PM MDT 1 of 4
STLMT,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00270−RBJ

Baca v. Parkview Medical Center, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge R. Brooke Jackson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (Settlement) Cause: 42:12181 American With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Date Terminated: 11/04/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

George Baca

represented by Sarah Marie Morris Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Email: sarahmorris7@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Farr Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Parkview Medical Center, Inc.
Defendant Parkview Health Systems, Inc.

represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi Sherman &Howard, L.L.C.−Denver 633 17th Street Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202−3622 303−297−2900 Fax: 303−298−0940 Email: BColaizzi@shermanhoward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Myles Deeny Sherman &Howard, L.L.C.−Denver 633 17th Street Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202−3622 303−299−8194 Fax: 303−298−0940 Email: rdeeny@shermanhoward.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-270 As of: 10/13/2016 12:23 PM MDT 2 of 4

Raymond Myles Deeny (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/09/2015
02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/10/2015
02/18/2015 02/18/2015 03/03/2015 03/04/2015
03/04/2015 03/05/2015
03/05/2015 03/30/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Parkview Health Systems, Inc., Parkview Medical Center, Inc. (Filing fee $ 400,Receipt Number 1082−4261077)Attorney Amy Farr Robertson added to party George Baca(pty:pla), filed by George Baca. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(Robertson, Amy) Modified on 2/9/2015 to correct party name.(dbera, ). (Entered: 02/09/2015)
2 Case assigned to Judge Richard P. Matsch and drawn to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. Text Only Entry (dbera, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
3 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. Magistrate Judge Consent form issued pursuant to Local Rule (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (dbera, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
4 MEMORANDUM RETURNING CASE for Reassignment by Judge Richard P. Matsch (evana, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
5 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to 4 Memorandum Returning Case. This case is reassigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson. All future pleadings should be designated as 15−cv−00270 RBJ. (Text Only Entry) (evana, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
6 ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: The parties are ordered to set an initial scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after the answer, motion to dismiss or other response to the complaint is filed. Please see the order for details. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/10/2015. (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by George Baca. Parkview Medical Center, Inc. served on 2/11/2015, answer due 3/4/2015. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by George Baca. Parkview Health Systems, Inc. served on 2/11/2015, answer due 3/4/2015. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Sarah Marie Morris on behalf of George BacaAttorney Sarah Marie Morris added to party George Baca(pty:pla) (Morris, Sarah) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
10 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, Attorney Brooke A. Colaizzi added to party Parkview Health Systems, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Brooke A. Colaizzi added to party Parkview Medical Center, Inc.(pty:dft) by Parkview Health Systems, Inc., Parkview Medical Center, Inc..(Colaizzi, Brooke) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
11 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Colaizzi, Brooke) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
12 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Raymond Myles Deeny on behalf of Parkview Health Systems, Inc., Parkview Medical Center, Inc.Attorney Raymond Myles Deeny added to party Parkview Health Systems, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Raymond Myles Deeny added to party Parkview Medical Center, Inc.(pty:dft) (Deeny, Raymond) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
13 MINUTE ORDER: A Scheduling Conference is set for April 21, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A 902 before Judge R. Brooke Jackson. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/5/2015. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
14 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Parkview Health Systems, Inc. by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-270 As of: 10/13/2016 12:23 PM MDT 3 of 4

04/01/2015 04/02/2015 04/10/2015 04/21/2015
04/21/2015 06/25/2015 06/26/2015
06/29/2015 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 07/09/2015 07/20/2015 07/20/2015
07/31/2015

15 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
16 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order. Granted as to the medical records of Eva Baca and other patients of Parkview Medical Center. Otherwise denied. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 4/2/2015. Text Only Entry(rbjsec. ) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
17 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
18 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge R. Brooke Jackson: Scheduling Conference held on 4/21/2015. Discovery due by 11/2/2015, Dispositive Motions due by 12/2/2015. Three day Bench Trial set to commence 3/14/2016 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge R. Brooke Jackson with a Trial Preparation Conference on 2/25/2016 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom A 902 before Judge R. Brooke Jackson. Court Reporter: Kara Spitler. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 4/21/15. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
20 Joint MOTION for Referral for a Settlement Conference and for Continuation of Deadlines by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
21 ORDER denying 20 Joint MOTION for Referral for a Settlement Conference and for Continuation of Deadlines. The Court agrees that Magistrate Judge Hegarty is an excellent mediator. However, the policy of the court at this time is that referrals to magistrate judges for settlement conferences are made to the magistrate judge randomly assigned to the case. I will be happy to refer the case to Magistrate Judge Tafoya for a settlement conference at your request. As for the deadlines, I have no objection to any modification of the schedule to which you agree except the dispositive motions deadline. It would be difficult for the Court to consider a dispositive motion with full briefing any later and still maintain the trial date. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/26/2015. Text Only Entry(rbjsec. ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
22 Joint MOTION for Referral for a Settlement Conference and for Continuation of Deadlines by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
23 ORDER granting 22 Joint MOTION for Referral for a Settlement Conference and for Continuation of Deadlines. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/29/2015. Text Only Entry(rbjsec. ) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
24 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, as indicated. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/29/15. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
25 ORDER Setting Settlement Conference for 8/19/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/9/15. (sgrim) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear by Insurance Representative at Settlement Conference by Telephone by Defendant Parkview Medical Center, Inc.. (Colaizzi, Brooke) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
27 MEMORANDUM regarding 26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear by Insurance Representative at Settlement Conference by Telephone filed by Parkview Medical Center, Inc. Motion 26 is referred to Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 7/20/2015. Text Only Entry (rbjsec. ) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
28 MINUTE ORDER denying 26 Motion for Leave for Insurance Representative to Appear at Settlement Conference by Telephone. In order for the defendant to make a good faith effort at settlement, the insurance representative must appear in person. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/31/15. Text Only Entry(kmtlc1 ) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-270 As of: 10/13/2016 12:23 PM MDT 4 of 4

08/19/2015 09/03/2015 09/04/2015 09/08/2015
09/29/2015 11/04/2015 11/04/2015

29 MINUTE ENTRY for Settlement Conference proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 8/19/2015. (morti, ) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
30 ORDER. A continued Settlement Conference is set for 9/29/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom C201 before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. The parties shall appear as previously arranged. Entered by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 09/03/2015. Text Only Entry (kmt, ) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
31 Joint MOTION to Continue Deadlines by Plaintiff George Baca. (Robertson, Amy) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
32 ORDER granting 31 Joint MOTION to Continue Deadlines. The deadlines are extended as follows: Plaintiffs Response to Defendants First Discovery is 10/9/15; Deadline for written discovery is 10/19/15; Deadline for expert disclosure is 10/20/15; Deadline for rebuttal experts is 11/10/15; and Discovery cut−off is 11/18/15. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 9/8/15. Text Only Entry(rbjsec.) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
33 MINUTE ORDER: The Settlement Conference set for September 29, 2015, is vacated. The Settlement Conference will not be reset. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/29/15. Text Only Entry (kmtlc1 ) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
34 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Case With Prejudice by Defendants Parkview Health Systems, Inc., Parkview Medical Center, Inc.. (Colaizzi, Brooke) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
35 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to 34 stipulation to dismiss filed in this case on 11/4/15. Text Only Entry (jdyne, ) (Entered: 11/04/2015)

 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
George Baca("Baca")hereby enters into this Settlement Agreement("Agreement") with Parlcview Medical Center, Inc.,("Parkview"). Baca and Parlcview are referred to collectively in this Agreement as "the Parties."
Baca brought a lawsuit against Parlcview titled George Baca v. Parlcview Medical Center, Inc., No. 15-cv-00270-RBJ (the "Lawsuit"), which currently is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of a settlement between Baca and Parkview resolving all claims and controversies between them, including but not limited to the Lawsuit.
I. TERMS
A. By entering into this Agreement, no Party admits any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever.
B. The Parties agree that neither Party will make any comments or statements, or cause any comments or statements to be made,that discredit or disparage the other Party.
C. The Parties have collaborated on and agree to the joint press-release attached hereto as Exhibit A and will issue said release once this Agreement is fully executed.
D. Parlcview will apologize to Baca for his treatment in July 2013. The apology will be oral and private and the Parties agree that the content of the apology will not be made public in any way. Baca agrees that he will not have any input into the content ofthe apology, nor will he have any cause ofaction for breach ofthis Agreement based on the content ofthe apology.
E. Parkview will provide a demonstration of the VRI system for Baca, to be scheduled through his attorney.
F. For two years, Parlcview will provide an annual report to a neutral third-party agreed upon by the Parties regarding the state of Parkview's current technology and practices for providing effective communication to deaf and hard-of-hearing patients and visitors. The report will include the number oftimes the VRI system was used over the reporting period,the number oftimes an ASL interpreter was engaged over the reporting period, complaints, commendations, or other comments received, and any downtime or other technical difficulties resulting in the system being unavailable in excess of two hours. For two years, the third party will be able to provide non-binding recommendations concerning these matters.
G. Parkview will maintain a VRI system that is, at a minimum, materially equivalent to the present system, which was installed and functioning prior to the Lawsuit, in terms of technology, versatility, and Internet reliability.

H. Parkview will keep in place its current or updated policies permitting reliance on VRI in emergencies. Pre-scheduled and outpatient services will continue to use in-person ASL interpreters for sign language needs. In the following specific situations, staff must use extra care to determine whether VRI is sufficient or whether an in-person ASL interpreter is needed:

1. childbirth; 2. patients who are children; 3. deaf patients who have cognitive disabilities, mental illness, or are obviously under
the influence of drugs(prescribed or otherwise)or alcohol; 4. patients who are emotional or violent; 5. patients who have a secondary disability such as vision impairment; and 6. patients who have injuries or other conditions that impede their ability to view the
screen.

I. Parlcview will ensure that notices are posted in sufficient size, number, and location to inform patients and companions who need sign language interpretation of the availability of, and procedures for obtaining, interpretation via either VRI or on-site ASL interpreters.

J. Parlcview will ensure that any information provided to patients or companions by video is captioned or interpreted.

K, Parlcview will keep in place its current training regimen for existing and new clinical staff regarding the provision of effective communication to patients, companions, and visitors. Parlcview will train its staff that lip-reading and note-writing are often not effective in communicating medical information to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and that staff should take care in ascertaining the preferred method of communication of the deaf or hard of hearing patient or companion.

L. Parkview will pay the gross sum of $65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand dollars)(the "Settlement Payment"). This Settlement Payment is the entire payment by Parkview to settle all claims brought against Parlcview in the Lawsuit and all claims that Baca might have brought against Parlcview in the Lawsuit or in any other state or federal judicial or administrative forum up to the date of the execution of this Agreement, including any claims for attorneys' fees and costs.

1. Parlcview will issue two separate checks, one made payable to Baca in the amount of $30,000.00 and one made payable to the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, counsel for Baca,in the amount of$35,000.00.

2. This Settlement Payment will be paid to Baca within ten(10)business days ofthe Effective Date ofthis Agreement, as defined below, and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service("IRS")on a 1099 Form.

i.

The Parties agree that Baca and/or his attorneys will pay any taxes,

interest, or penalties due by them on the Settlement Payment, and that Parkview has no

2

obligation to pay or assist in paying any such amounts. Baca acknowledges that Parlcview has not provided any advice or opinion to him regarding potential tax liability for payments made under this Agreement. Baca further agrees to indemnify and hold Parkview and its officers, agents, employees, and insurer harmless against any claims by the IRS or any other entity, including for any attorney fees and costs incurred, related to the taxation of the Settlement Payment.

ii.

This Agreement is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be

used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that maybe imposed on any taxpayer

by the IRS.

3. Baca accepts the Settlement Payment described above as full payment for ail amounts owed to him by Parlcview on any basis, including, but not limited to, any claim for attorneys' fees or costs.

M. Baca, individually and on behalf of his successors, heirs, and assigns, releases Parlcview and any current or future affiliates of Parlcview, including but not limited to its officers, employees, attorneys, and insurers, (collectively "Parkview Released Parties"), from any and all claims or liabilities, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, past or present, up to the date Baca signs this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph waives or releases any claim or right that cannot by law be waived or released.

N. The Parties agree that they will instruct their attorneys in the Lawsuit to cooperatively prepare and file the necessary motion to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice no later than ten(10)business days after Parlcview pays Baca the Settlement Payment.

O. Baca states that he has not assigned or transferred any portion of any claims released or discharged in this Agreement to any person and affirmatively states that no one(such as a judgment creditor, government insurer, or beneficiary of a court order concerning child support or other garnishment) has any right to assert any interest in the amount being disbursed. Parlcview states that it has not assigned or transferred any portion of any claims released or discharged in this Agreement to any person.

P. This Agreement is the complete agreement between the Parties. No other representations or promises were made, or may be demanded, concerning the resolution of this matter.

Q. The Parties acknowledge that each was advised by and consulted with an attorney during the negotiation of this Agreement. This Agreement and all of its terms are to be construed equally as to both Parties.

R. This Agreement will become effective on the first business day after it is fully executed (the "Effective Date"). Parlcview agrees to execute the Agreement within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving a copy executed by Baca. If Baca fails to execute this Agreement within a reasonable time, Parkview will have no obligation to make the Settlement Payment or to comply with any ofthe other terms in this Agreement.

3

S. This Agreement may be executed in identical counterparts, which, when considered together, constitute the entire agreement ofthe Parties.
T. Baca has read this Agreement, has had the opportunity to consult with an attorney as to the meaning ofthis Agreement,and understands each ofits terms.
U. Baca voluntarily signs this Agreement as his own free act, in exchange for consideration to which he otherwise would not be entitled to or which his entitlement has been in dispute.
V. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Colorado, or by federal law to the extent federal law preempts state law.
II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE:
A. If either Party alleges this Agreement has been breached, that Party shall provide written notice to the other Party within thirty (30) days of discovering the alleged breach(es). The written notice should include specific details concerning the reason that Party believes there has been a breach ofthe Agreement,including what provision ofthis Agreement he or it believes has been violated.
B. The Parties shall then meet and discuss the concerns raised in the written notice within fifteen(15)business days.
C. Any deadlines established in this dispute procedure may be extended by written agreement ofthe Parties.
D. Failure to comply with these dispute procedures shall constitute a waiver of any claims arising from the alleged breach ofthe Agreement.
III. MEDICARE LIEN INDEMNIFICATION.
A. Baca represents and warrants in good faith that:
1. He is enrolled in Medicare.
2. In the Lawsuit, he sought damages related to pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and impairment ofquality oflife.
3. He received no physical or mental health care services and received no Medicare benefits for medical services related to the damages sought in the Lawsuit.
4. No known or knowable claims, liens, or super-liens exist against the Settlement Payment.
0

~. If any claims or liens ire asserted, $aca will ensure that they shad be paid and satisfied from the Settlement Payment or waived in full.

6, ~Te w~1 indemnify and ho1~ harmless the ~'arXcview Released Parrt:.es from any claim ~iy, thraugh andlor under the Medicare ~ecandaty Payer statute, including but nat limited #a auy direct claim by I~tledicare and/or Social Security for reimbursement of any fitnt~s p~iti by them relating to the claims or damages raised in the Lawsuit.

7. Thy it~fannation provided to the Parkvie~v Released Parties used for confirmation of ~aca's ~vlec~icare status, including his name, gender, date of ~irkh, and Saci~.l Security Number,is complete, accurate,and current as ofthe date ofthis Agreement.

B. Parkvievv agrees to release tie Settlement ~'ayment without a Conditional Payment letter in specific reliance on the representation of Baca°s counsel, set Earth in Exhibit B hereto, ghat the Centers for Medicare & Ivledicaid Services("CMS")communicated to her that CM5 cannot issue a Conditional Payment letter.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, aid intending to be legally bound, the Parties Hive executed this Agreement.

CrEORGE BACA

PARKVIEW MEDICAL CENTER,INC.
~~~~~

Da~~d. t,,.~ ,F- ~ ~S

Title• ~c~~ t c~.r~~~ ~~ fi~

Dated: ~a~,t~/Zvi 5

5

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

October 16,2015

CONTACT:

Amy Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 303-757-7901 arobertson@creeclaw.org

Michelle Peulen Parkview Medical Center,Inc. 719-584-4499 MichelleP@parlcviewmc.com

Baca v. Pa~kview Resolved
George Baca and Parkview Medical Center Reach Mutually Beneficial Agreement
PUEBLO, CO —George Baca and Parkview Medical Center have reached a settlement in Mr. Baca's lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressing Parkview's provision of effective communication to deafindividuals.
Following his daughter's hospitalization in July, 2013, Mr. Baca -- who is deaf -- alerted Parlcview to shortcomings in their system for communicating with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients and family members. Prior to the initiation of the Lawsuit, Parkview installed video remote interpreting (VRI) to ensure immediate access to sign language interpreters, and has instituted policies that also ensure that pre-scheduled and outpatient services will continue to use in-person ASL interpreters. Parkview will continue its current training program, ensuring that staff are trained that lip-reading and note-writing are often not effective in communicating medical information to individuals who are deaf or hard ofhearing and that staffshould take care in ascertaining the preferred method of communication of the deaf or hard of hearing patient or companion.
Mr. Baca and Parlcview worked together to reach an agreement that recognizes the steps that Parkview has already taken to improve their communication policies, while also putting in place provisions that address Mr. Baca's specific concerns.
Mr. Baca appreciates Parkview's dedication to improving services for deaf and hard-of-hearing patients and families and Parlcview appreciates Mr. Baca's contributions to the new policies and technologies.
For more information please contact the Press Contacts above.
###
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center(CREEC) The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center is aDenver-based membership organization that has the goal ofensuring that everyone can fully and independently participate in our nation's civic life without discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. www.creeclaw.or~.

EXHIBIT A

- ~ ,~ _ ~ _r

CIVIL. I~TGH"CS ~17UCACIOh7 r~ND ENFORCEMENT CENTER

104 Broadway,Suite 400 Denver,CO 80203 303.757.7901 ww~~.creecla~v.or~
Amy F.1Zo~ertson arobea~tsonGcr~ecla~nr.oil

October 13,2Q15
By email to: bcol.aizzz@sl.~ei°inanlzowaz~d.coln
Brooke A. Calaizzi Sherman & ~-Toward LLC 633 Seve~lteenth Street Suite 3000 Denver,Colorado 80202
Re: Baca z~. Parlcviezv Medical Center, No,15-cv-00270-RBJ
Dear Brooke:
I am writing to document my telephone call wif11 tlZe $enefits Coordination ar~d Recovery Center of the Centers for Medicare a~~d Medicaid Services("CMS")an or abo~xt October 5,2015. Tz1 that call,I attempted uz good faith to obtain a Conditional Paymentletter or Medicare waiver for George Baca ~~el~ting fio fihe subject matter of t11e captioned litigation, ~b~.7t was unable to do so, Rathe~~, the CNISrepresentative explained tl~~t t11ey would clot be able to issue a letter of any sort, as there was i~to i~Zjury involved.

SI11C~~'~lyy
CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION

EXHIBIT B

Output: In 2015, a deaf individual filed a lawsuit against Parkview Health Systems Inc.  He claimed that he was not provided an interpreter in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which severely influenced his communications with hospital staff regarding his critically injured daughter. The case settled for changes in policy and practice.