Gross v. Samudio et al

Filing 73

ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 49 : defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and this civil action is dismissed, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 5/22/2014.(jsmit )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02594-RPM
DALE GROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUILLERMO SAMUDIO, Community Parole Officer;
IAN SWEENEY, Community Parole Officer;
JENNIFER DUNCAN, Community Parole Officer;
ANTHONY YOUNG, Chairman of the Colorado Parole Board;
ED THOMAS, Member of the Parole Board;
DENISE BALAZIC, Member of the Parole Board;
PATRICIA BAN WAAK, Member of the Parole Board;
JOHN O’DELL, Member of the Parole Board;
MICHAEL ANDERSON, Member of the Parole Board;
REBECCA OAKES, Member of the Parole Board;
FREDERICK E. TOLSON, President Sexual Offense Resource Services, LLC;
JOHN DOES, Number 5-6, unknown officers of Sexual Offense Resource Services, LLC;
GREIG VEEDER, President and Director, Teaching Humane Existence Treatment Program,
Inc.; and
JOHN DOES, Number 7-8, unknown officers of Teaching Humane Existence Treatment
Program, Inc.,

Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
_____________________________________________________________________
On April 14, 2011, the Colorado Parole Board revoked the parole of Dale Gross
for his failure to participate in sex offender treatment with any of the authorized
treatment providers all of whom refused to provide him treatment. He filed this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendant parole officers and
parole board members violated his rights to due process protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment. The essence of his claim is that the defendants accepted the treatment
providers’ refusal to accept him for treatment and thereby improperly delegated to those
civilian providers the absolute discretion to refuse him for treatment. To be returned to

prison because of those refusals and without an opportunity to present any challenge to
the reasons for refusal or to provide any alternative course of treatment raises serious
questions under the Constitution.
Whatever the merits of the plaintiff’s narrow claim they may not be pursued in
this action because Mr. Gross has not provided any clearly established law to support
his claim. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to the protection of qualified
immunity. It is therefore
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and
this civil action is dismissed.
DATED: May 22nd, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch
__________________________
Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

2