PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



show temp (1) .pdf


Original filename: show_temp (1).pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED. WITH TRACKED CHANGES.doc
Author: Jennifer

This PDF 1.4 document has been generated by PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 / Acrobat Distiller 8.1.0 (Windows); modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 27/02/2015 at 19:19, from IP address 208.25.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 524 times.
File size: 51 KB (10 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 10

1 LORONA MEAD, PLC
Jess A. Lorona, # 009186
2 2111 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 431
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
3 Telephone: (602) 385-6825
Facsimile: (602) 385-3824
4 Email: Jess@loronamead.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

BRANDEN ADKINS, CHRISTOPHER
ABRAMS, CODY BRANDT, KEOKI
CASE NO: 2012-cv-01615–RCB-JFM
AGOSTO, CLARENCE BUTLER, JR.,
WARREN K. ELICKER, SAMUEL
GUSMAN, JR., VAOPELE T. IIGA,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WILLIAM KEKONA III, DANIEL
KENOLIO, KEONE LABATAD, HARRY
B. LOUGHMILLER, JR., JUSTIN
LUHIA, EARL NAKI, JASON K.
(Demand for Jury Trial)
SANTOS, LOTO SATELE, MOSES
THOMPSON, PAUL M. TOGIA, SENITA
M. TUIVAILALA, POTAUFA ULA,
SHADRACH UNEA,

18
Plaintiffs,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, THE STATE OF HAWAII,
JOHN IOANE, NATHANIEL SAMBERG,
FRANK GARCIA, CHIEF LOPEZ, CO
SCHNEIDER, CO ROCHA, AND SORT
MEMBERS
COOK,
DWIGHT,
ONDULICH, ROMERO, GAWLIK, AND
CANTEY,
Defendants.

28
1

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 10

1
2

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3
4
5

Plaintiffs above named, for a claim for relief against Defendants above
named, allege as follows:

6
7

COUNT I
1.

Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the State of Hawaii who were

8
9

sent by the State of Hawaii to be incarcerated in the custody of Corrections

10 Corporation of America (“CCA”).

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11
12

2.

CCA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State

of Tennessee that entered in to an agreement to incarcerate Hawaii inmates for the

13
14
15

State of Hawaii, including at Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”) in Eloy, Arizona.
3.

Defendants Nathaniel Samberg, Frank Garcia, Chief Lopez, CO

16 Schneider, CO Rocha, and Sort Members Cook, Dwight, Ondulich, Romero, Gawlik,
17

and Cantey, on information and belief, are residents of Arizona employed by CCA.

18
19

4.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343(a)(3) in

20 that the action arises under the constitution and laws of the United States, including
21 42 USC § 1983, and U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.
22

5.

Venue is in the District of Arizona because the actions complained of

23
24
25

occurred here.
6.

Defendants at all relevant times owed Plaintiffs a clearly established

26 duty to refrain from intentionally or negligently injuring Plaintiffs and a duty to
27
28
2

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 10

1 refrain from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment and undue emotional distress
2 upon Plaintiffs, all of which duties Defendants violated and conspired to violate.
3
7.
On or about July 26, 2010, an incident occurred where various inmates
4
5 at Saguaro Correctional Center, which is operated CCA, fought or caused a
6 disturbance.
7

8.

In connection with said occurrence, a lieutenant or other employee of

8
9
10

CCA was injured.
9.

In retaliation for said attack, CCA, through its managing employees and

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11 other employees, including the individual Defendants, embarked upon a pattern of
12

retaliation at SCC beginning about July 26, 2010 and continuing thereafter.

13
14

10.

Plaintiffs were stripped of nearly all of their clothing and were beaten,

15 questioned, and humiliated.
16
17

11.

Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs provide written statements.

12.

When Plaintiffs refused or wrote brief statements, the individual

18
19

Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs write more, and then hit and hurt Plaintiffs in an

20 effort to coerce further statements.
21
22

13.

Inmates were required to get on their knees with their hands handcuffed

behind their back, whereupon they were hit by multiple officers employed by CCA.

23
24

14.

Plaintiffs were beaten and assaulted, including by having their heads

25 banged on tables while they were stripped to their underwear and while one or both of
26 their hands were handcuffed behind their backs.
27

15.

Inmates were kicked while on the ground.

28
3

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 10

1

16.

Inmates were told that if they did not provide written statements, their

2 beatings would continue.
3
17.
Beatings in fact continued for those who refused to provide statements.
4
18.
Excessive force was used on Plaintiffs, including in the multipurpose
5
6 room when statements were demanded, in H-B when showers were allowed in late
7

July, 2010, and on or about July 30, 2010 when door stops were installed.

8
9

19.

Plaintiffs were threatened with harm to themselves and their families,

10 including through statements such as:

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11

a. “We have your emergency contact information;”

12

b. “We know who your family is and where they live and we are going

13
to harm them;”

14
15

c. “We are going to kill you;”

16

d. “We will continue to beat you and the only way to stop that is to

17

commit suicide;”

18
e. “We will send you to hell;”

19

f. “We will stick something up your ass.”

20
21
22

20.

In an effort to conceal what was happening, Defendants or their agents

and employees violated their own policy that a handheld camera would be used to

23
24
25

film inmates.
21.

As a result of duress, force, and threats of force, some of the Plaintiffs

26 provided statements in the hope of ending their beatings.
27
28
4

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 10

1

22.

Inmates were told that if they told anyone what had happened, they

2 would be killed or beaten further.
3
23.
CCA personnel, including the warden himself, threatened Plaintiffs and
4
5 parents of one or more inmates, including with longer or more onerous incarceration.
6
7

24.

Defendants, acting under color of State law, violated clearly established

rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States,

8
9
10

causing both physical and emotional injuries and pain.
25.

Some of the Plaintiffs are no longer confined in prison, including

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11 Agusto, Labatad, Naki, and Loughmiller.
12

26.

Some of the Plaintiffs are no longer confined at SCC, including Butler,

13
14
15

Iiga, Thompson, and Unea.
27.

On information and belief, SCC purported to have administrative

16 remedies.
17

28.

However, at the time when said remedies supposedly should have been

18
19
20

pursued by Plaintiffs, they were not available to Plaintiffs.
29.

For a number of days after July 26, 2010, Plaintiffs were in segregation

21 and were deprived of their property, including any inmate handbooks or materials
22

setting forth grievance procedures.

23
24

30.

For a number of days after July 26, Plaintiffs were not allowed to

25 possess paper or writing materials.
26

31.

Unit HB was controlled by SORT officers.

27
28
5

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 10

1

32.

If Plaintiffs tried to speak with the SORT officers to ask for anything,

2 generally Planitiffs were told to sit on their bunk and to get away from the window
3
and any requests were ignored.
4
33.
By the time Plaintiffs had available administrative remedies, it was too
5
6 late to pursue them.
7

34.

Plaintiffs attempted to pursue their administrative remedies and when

8
9
10

they did so, administrative relief was denied as untimely or otherwise improper.
35.

On information and belief, SCC’s grievance procedure does not allow

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11 for the payment of money damages and damages are not an available administrative
12

remedy.

13
14

36.

Defendants, in order to obtain a stay of an action pending in the State of

15 Hawaii, waived the Prison Litigation Reform Act, including any requirement that
16 administrative remedies be exhausted.
17

37.

Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiffs continued following July 27,

18
19

2010, and included, at various times, limiting toilet paper, interfering with mail, and

20 at times forwarding it to the lawyer representing CCA, threats, taunting, denying
21 clothing and bedding, keeping Plaintiffs in an area that was too cold, withholding
22

hygiene items, providing an unworkable toothbrush and requiring Plaintiffs to share

23
24

an electric razor, including with an inmate who had HIV, causing Plaintiffs to fear

25 that they will contract HIV or another disease.
26
27

38.

Plaintiff Butler suffered a serious and permanent back injury as a result

of being kicked by a SORT team officer.

28
6

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 10

1

39.

Plaintiff Santos suffered a serious and permanent reinjury to his knee as

2 a result of being slammed to his knees unnecessarily by SORT team officers.
3
COUNT II
4
40.
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.
5
6
7

41.

By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants committed an assault and battery

upon each of the Plaintiffs.

8
COUNT III

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

9
10

42.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

11

43.

By virtue of the outrageous conduct alleged above, Defendants

12

committed the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiffs and

13
14

caused serious injuries to Plaintiffs.
COUNT IV

15
16
17

44.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

45.

By virtue of the foregoing outrageous conduct, Defendants foreseeably

18
19

and intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress upon each of the Plaintiffs and

20 caused serious injuries to Plaintiffs.
21
22

COUNT V
46.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

47.

The aforesaid actions were outrageous and Defendants negligently

23
24

25 and/or intentionally inflicted serious and extreme emotional distress, fear, stress,
26 worry, and anxiety upon Plaintiffs.
27
28
7

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 10

1

48.

The actions of Defendants forseeably caused Plaintiffs to suffer

2 physical and emotional injuries and other damages in such amounts as shall be shown
3
at trial.
4
COUNT VI
5
6
7

49.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

50.

In an effort to conceal what was happening, CCA deliberately failed to

8
9
10

preserve evidence of wrongdoing, including videotapes and digital recordings.
51.

In a further effort to conceal what they were doing, Defendants

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11 deliberately falsified reports and other information.
12

52.

CCA’s failure to preserve evidence has and will disrupt and result in a

13
14
15

significant impairment on this lawsuit and other claims of Plaintiffs.
53.

There is a casual relationship between Defendants’ destruction of

16 evidence and the potential inability of Plaintiffs to prove their claims.
17

COUNT VII

18
19
20

54.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

55.

Each of the Defendants conspired to commit the wrongs alleged in

21 Count I-V above and took substantial steps in the commission thereof.
22

COUNT VIII

23
24
25

56.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

57.

The actions of Defendants were committed wilfully, intentionally,

26 maliciously, for an improper purpose, in reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs,
27
28
8

Case 2:12-cv-01615-SMM Document 8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 10

1 and in a grossly negligent fashion, warranting an award of exemplary or punitive
2 damages against Defendants.
3
COUNT IX

4
5

58.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

6

59.

CCA and the State of Hawaii are responsible under the doctrine of

7

respondeat superior or other applicable law for the actions of their employees and the

8
9

individual Defendants.
COUNT X

10

LORONA MEAD, PLC

2111 E. HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 431
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
(602) 385-6825

11
12

60.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the above allegations.

61.

Various CCA employees, including Warden Thomas, subsequent to

13
14

July 26, 2010, adopted a practice of taunting and threatening Plaintiffs because

15 Plaintiffs sought legal counsel and instituted legal action against CCA.
16
17

62.

CCA employees, particularly Warden Thomas, conveyed to Plaintiffs

that if Plaintiffs did not stop suing CCA, Plaintiffs would be beaten further, confined

18
19
20

in prison longer, or their prison conditions would be made harsher.
63.

Warden Thomas threatened one or more of Plaintiffs, including

21 Thompson, by stating that he knew prison authorities at various locations, including
22

in Hawaii and elsewhere in Arizona, and that wherever Plaintiffs went, they would do

23
24
25

hard time or “Arizona time.”
64.

Thomas suggested that one or more of the Plaintiffs who had already

26 been transferred from SCC had already been beaten as a result of the suggestion by
27

Thomas.

28
9


Related documents


show temp 1
legalforce v legalzoom complaint
blue cross v insys 2 17 cv 02286 dlr complaint exhibits
gov uscourts azd 941986 1 0
miller v guttormson dismissal
99 notice of appearance


Related keywords