IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION ALVION CASHION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CAFN: JACK LEE, in his individual ) capacity as superintendent of ) Middle River Regional Jail, ) ) AND ) ) Dr. MOISES QUIÑONES, in his ) individual capacity, ) ) AND ) ) MIDDLE RIVER REGIONAL ) JAIL AUTHORITY, ) ) Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES Plaintiff, Alvion Cashion, files this Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C as the statutory vehicle to vindicate his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While incarcerated at Middle River Regional Jail ( MRRJ ), Defendants showed deliberate indifference to his diagnosed and serious medical 1 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 24 Pageid#: 1

2 need for his prescribed anti-psychotic medication of which Plaintiff had been taking for over 12 years. INTRODUCTION There are serious problems at MRRJ, and Jack Lee is directly implementing a policy that has caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, and other inmates, and undoubtedly will lead to someone s death if it has not already. Defendant Middle River Regional Jail Authority has vested policy-making authority for Middle River Regional Jail to Defendant Lee. Defendant Lee has, in turn, implemented a dangerous policy of denying inmate requests for prescription medications with respect to current, diagnosed and serious medical conditions. For example, for twelve years, Plaintiff has been taking prescribed antipsychotic medication in order to prevent himself from having dangerous psychotic, mental breaks. At the time Mr. Cashion arrived at MRRJ he was taking prescribed Prolixin shots to treat his mental disease. Mr. Cashion told MRRJ medical staff, during his medical intake, that he had a diagnosed mental condition, and that he must take his Prolixin shots to avoid terrible psychotic consequences. MRRJ staff told him that they cannot and will not prescribe him anti-psychotic medication. Nevertheless, Mr. Cashion continued to request his medication. Eventually, after never receiving his medication, Mr. Cashion experienced a psychotic break, during 2 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 24 Pageid#: 2

3 which he began banging his head against a prison wall and jumping around uncontrollably. After his psychotic break, Mr. Cashion continued to request MRRJ to prescribe him his anti-psychotic medication and, in response, MRRJ staff continued to tell Mr. Cashion that the jail does not prescribe anti-psychotic medication to inmates. Significantly, no MRRJ official ever made an independent assessment of Mr. Cashion to determine what alternatives (prescription medication or otherwise) could help him deal with his medically diagnosed mental illness. No medical staff attempted to treat Mr. Cashion, and when he persisted with his request for medical attention, MRRJ staff told him: we are really busy; we will get to you later. Because of the above, and more, Mr. Cashion seeks compensatory damages against these Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C and 1343(a)(4), as well as under 42 U.S.C Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and L.R. 2 (b) because (1) a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Mr. Cashion s claims occurred within this District and Division and (2) Defendants reside and transact business in this District and Division. 3 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 24 Pageid#: 3

4 ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION 2. Mr. Cashion is not incarcerated and thus does not have to show that administrative remedies related to his claims have been exhausted. See Cofield v. Bowser, 247 F. App'x 413, 414 (4th Cir. 2007) (reasoning, [b]ecause Cofield was not a prisoner when he filed his complaint, the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not applicable to his 1983 action. ) PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Alvion Cashion is aged 46, and currently not incarcerated. The facts pertaining to his claims are outlined in the Fact Section and Counts below. 4. Defendant Dr. Quiñones, at all times relevant, was the medical doctor at Middle River Regional Jail ( MRRJ ) who had the obligation to ensure that Plaintiff had an independent assessment that would determine whether he could ascertain his prescribed anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Quiñones knew Plaintiff required prescribed anti-psychotic medication because Dr. Quiñones reviewed Plaintiff s medical records, which demonstrated that, while at MRRJ, Plaintiff required prescribed anti-psychotic medication to treat his severe mental condition. 4 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 24 Pageid#: 4

5 Dr. Quiñones also knew Mr. Cashion needed his prescribed anti-psychotic medication because Dr. Quiñones reviewed Mr. Cashion s medical request form in which Mr. Cashion requested assistance with his mental illness, to include a request for anti-psychotic pain medication. Dr. Quiñones never prescribed Plaintiff any medication (prescribed antipsychotic or otherwise) and, as a result, Plaintiff suffered a psychotic break while at MRRJ: Plaintiff began beating his head against the wall and experiencing severe bodily pain. Dr. Quiñones also never performed an independent medical assessment of Mr. Cashion to determine that Mr. Cashion did not require his antipsychotic pain medication. Dr. Quiñones also never ensured that Mr. Cashion met with a qualified mental health professional who could also perform an independent medical assessment of Mr. Cashion to determine whether Mr. Cashion required his anti-psychotic pain medication, or some other form of medication to help treat his mental illness. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. Quiñones was responsible for ensuring that he knew all controlling law within the Fourth Circuit regarding deliberate indifference to medical needs, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal s case law with respect to under-medicating inmates and flat-out denying 5 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 5 of 24 Pageid#: 5

6 demonstrably required prescription medication to inmates under Dr. Quiñones care and custody. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. Quiñones was acting was acting under the color of state and federal laws, and Dr. Quiñones was responsible for knowing and acting in accordance with all policies, procedures, orders, special orders, general orders, guidelines and regulations of the Middle River Regional Jail and Middle River Regional Jail Authority, while upholding his responsibility as the doctor for MRRJ. 5. Defendant Jack Lee, at all relevant times, was the Superintendent of MRRJ. Defendant Lee s tenure as Superintendent of MRRJ was approved by board members of the Middle River Regional Jail Authority. Defendant Lee, at all relevant times, was responsible for creating and implementing all policies and procedures at MRRJ. Prior to MRRJ staff refusing to provide Mr. Cashion with his prescribed anti-psychotic medication, Defendant Lee implemented a policy of prohibiting MRRJ staff from prescribing anti-psychotic medication to inmates at MRRJ. In fact, MRRJ staff told Mr. Cashion that MRRJ medical officials do not prescribe anti-psychotic medication to inmates at MRRJ. Because of Defendants Lee s policy, staff refused to provide Mr. Cashion his prescribed anti-psychotic 6 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 6 of 24 Pageid#: 6

7 medication. Jack Lee s job description stated that he must ensure the proper health, development, and medical care for all inmates. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Jack Lee was responsible for ensuring that he knew all controlling law within the Fourth Circuit regarding deliberate indifference to medical needs, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal s case law with respect to under-medicating inmates and flat-out denying anti-psychotic medication to inmates who demonstrate a medical need for said medication. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Jack Lee was acting acting under the color of state and federal laws, and Jack Lee was responsible for knowing and acting in accordance with all policies, procedures, orders, special orders, general orders, guidelines and regulations of the Middle River Regional Jail and Middle River Regional Jail Authority, while upholding his responsibility as the general superintendent for MRRJ. 6. Middle River Regional Jail Authority ( MRRJA ), through its board of Directors, governs Middle River Regional Jail. MRRJA offered Jack Lee his position as Superintendent of MRRJ, and Lee accepted this offer by MRRJA. Middle River Regional Jail Authority also vested policy-making authority, for 7 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 7 of 24 Pageid#: 7

8 MRRJ, in Jack Lee. MRRJA was the employer of Defendant Jack Lee at all times relevant to this Complaint. At the time Jack Lee implemented and oversaw the policy of not prescribing anti-psychotic medication to inmates at MRRJ, Jack Lee was acting as an employee of MRRJA. RELEVANT FACTS A. Defendant Jack Lee 7. Defendant Jack Lee at all relevant times to this Complaint was the Superintendent of MRRJ. 8. Defendant Lee s tenure as Superintendent of MRRJ was approved by the Chairman of the Middle River Regional Jail Authority. 9. The Chairman of the Middle River Regional Jail Authority, on behalf of the Middle River Regional Jail Authority, offered Defendant Lee his job as the Superintendent of Middle River Regional Jail. 10. Defendant Lee accepted the job offer made by the Middle River Regional Jail Authority to become the Superintendent of MRRJ. 8 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 8 of 24 Pageid#: 8

9 11. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant Lee s job description stated that he must ensure the proper health, development, and medical care for all inmates. 12. Defendant Lee s job description required him to review and approve medical polices at MRRJ and these medical policies were in effect prior to Mr. Cashion being incarcerated at MRRJ, including medical policies related to prescribing inmates prescription medications. 13. Prior to Mr. Cashion being incarcerated at MRRJ, Defendant Lee developed and implemented a policy that prohibited all staff, including medical staff and independent contract employees, from prescribing inmates anti-psychotic medication to MRRJ inmates. 14. Prior to Mr. Cashion being incarcerated at MRRJ, Defendant Lee approved an MRRJ policy that prohibited all staff, including medical staff and independent contract employees, from prescribing inmates anti-psychotic medication. Numerous inmates at MRRJ, over the span of years, have been denied prescription 9 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 9 of 24 Pageid#: 9

10 medication to treat known, medically diagnosed injuries because of Mr. Lee s policy. Numerous inmates at MRRJ, over the span of years, have been denied an assessment by a qualified health professional to determine if said inmate should continue to receive prescription medication to treat known, medically diagnosed injuries such as Mr. Cashion s mental illness. 15. While Mr. Cashion was incarcerated at MRRJ, Defendant Lee s policy of refusing to prescribe MRRJ inmates anti-psychotic medication was in effect and thus applied to Mr. Cashion s request for MRRJ to prescribe him anti-psychotic medication based on his known, medically diagnosed mental illness. 16. Jack Lee, as Superintendent of MRRJ, required all staff and independent contractors such as mental health professionals as a matter of MRRJ policy to refuse prescribing anti-psychotic medication to inmates at MRRJ, as evidenced by staff telling Mr. Cashion that no MRRJ personnel can prescribe him anti-psychotic medication; and also as evidenced by the fact that on Mr. Cashion s second stint at MRRJ, he arrived with his prescription medication and MRRJ staff let him use his own prescription medication, but once his own medication ran out, MRRJ personnel told Mr. Cashion they cannot prescribe him anti-psychotic medication 10 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 10 of 24 Pageid#: 10

11 and thus MRRJ staff refused to do so, and also refused to provide Mr. Cashion with any non-prescriptive medication to help him with his mental condition. 17. At all relevant time to this Complaint, Jack Lee enforced MRRJ s policy of refusing to prescribe anti-psychotic medication to MRRJ inmates by disciplining any staff member who disobeyed said directive/policy. MRRJ staff, including independent contractors such as mental health professionals simply did not perform independent assessments of MRRJ inmates such as Mr. Cashion regarding the need to for anti-psychotic medication because Lee had a policy that required the refusal of prescription, antipsychotic medication to inmates. 18. At the time that Jack Lee created and implemented MRRJ s policy of refusing to prescribe MRRJ inmates prescription, such as anti-psychotic medication, Defendant Lee was an employee of MRRJA. 19. At the time that Jack Lee approved MRRJ s policy of refusing to prescribe MRRJ inmates prescription medication, Defendant Lee was an employee of MRRJA. 11 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 11 of 24 Pageid#: 11

12 20. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant Lee s job description required him to ensure[] legal compliance [of MRRJ] by remaining current on all correctional philosophies and case law. B. Lee s job duties in relation to psychotropic medication 21. Defendant Superintendent Lee s job description at all times relevant to this Complaint required Lee to ensure that MRRJ is in full compliance with Virginia Department of Correction standards. 22. At all relevant times to this Complaint, the Virginia Department of Corrections standards required anyone performing mental health screening of an inmate to make an inquiry into whether the offender is presently prescribed psychotropic medication ; psychotropic medication is defined as Medication prescribed for the treatment of a documented mental health disorder, e.g., thought, mood, or behavior disorder. 23. Another standard of the Virginia Department of Corrections mandated, at all relevant times to this Complaint, that [a] newly received offender who is 12 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 12 of 24 Pageid#: 12

13 prescribed psychotropic medication for a mental disorder will be interviewed by the QMHP within one working day of admission to a Reception and Classification Center or Parole Violator Unit ; a QMHP is defined as a quality mental health professional, who by definition is [a]n individual employed in a designated mental health services position as a Psychologist or Psychology Associate, Psychiatrist, Social Worker (Masters level) or Registered Nurse or an individual with at least a Master s degree in psychology, social work or relevant human services field with knowledge, training, and skills in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. 24. Standards of the Virginia Department of Corrections permit inmates to be prescribed psychotropic medication after proper assessment, and at no time did Lee institute a policy that required a mental health professionals to visit and diagnose an inmate such as Mr. Cashion for mental health illness after an MRRJ staff member initially determined, through its medical screening process, that said inmate was taking prescribed anti-psychotic medication upon entering MRRJ jail. 13 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 13 of 24 Pageid#: 13

14 C. Facts related to Mr. Cashion s claims of deliberate indifference against Jack Lee and Dr. Quiñones 25. Upon entering MRRJ, medical staff performed a medical screening of Mr. Cashion and inquired as to whether Mr. Cashion was taking psychotropic medication; indeed, Mr. Cashion told MRRJ medical staff that he had suffered from psychotic breaks for over 11 years and as a result, he had been prescribed anti-psychotic pain medication, Prolixin. 26. Prolixin is a psychotropic medication. 27. After Mr. Cashion told MRRJ medical staff that he had suffered from psychotic breaks for over 11 years and as a result, he had been prescribed antipsychotic medication, Prolixin, Mr. Cashion provided MRRJ staff with information as to where to acquire his medical records from previous medical providers. 28. During his entire 56 day stay at MRRJ (appx. October 17, 2015 through December 11), no mental health professional, or any other physician at MRRJ, met 14 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 14 of 24 Pageid#: 14

15 with Mr. Cashion to assess his mental health, after determining during his mental health screening that he taking prescribed psychotropic medication as a requirement to treat his mental health illness. 29. During his stay at MRRJ, Mr. Cashion submitted a medical request form to request prescribed anti-psychotic medication, and repeatedly implored medical staff to provide him with prescription anti-psychotic medication. 30. MRRJ policy is to submit medical request forms to MRRJ s designated doctor, who in this case is Dr. Quiñones. 31. Dr. Quiñones read Mr. Cashion s medical request for anti-psychotic medication, Prolixin, and also read his medical records, which demonstrated that indeed Mr. Cashion suffered from a history of mental disease that required Prolixin or its equivalent in order to help prevent Mr. Cashion from suffering a mental break, such as a suicide attempt or attempt to injury himself or others Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 15 of 24 Pageid#: 15

16 Despite fully understanding Mr. Cashion s essential need for his antipsychotic medication, Dr. Quiñones refused to prescribe Mr. Cashion with any form of medication (anti-psychotic medication or otherwise) because MRRJ policy approved by Jack Lee prohibited Dr. Quiñones from prescribing Mr. Cashion anti-psychotic medication, and also created a culture in which Dr. Quiñones knew that it was a complete waste of time to refer Mr. Cashion to a mental health professional because no prescription medication would be provided to Mr. Cashion per policy. 33. At the time that Mr. Cashion required anti-psychotic medication, Dr. Quiñones had the professional ability to prescribe Mr. Cashion his anti-psychotic medication such as Prolixin, yet, despite fully understanding Mr. Cashion s essential need for his anti-psychotic medication, Dr. Quiñones never assessed Mr. Cashion to make an independent determination as to whether, in his professional medical opinion, Mr. Cashion required anti-psychotic medication, or whether Mr. Cashion needed to see another mental health professional as evidenced by Mr. Cashion stating that Dr. Quiñones never met with Mr. Cashion while he was incarcerated at MRRJ; nor did Dr. Quiñones ever refer Mr. Cashion to a qualified mental health professional while Mr. Cashion was incarcerated at MRRJ despite 16 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 16 of 24 Pageid#: 16

17 fully understanding Mr. Cashion s essential need for his anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Quiñones also had the ability to ignore Lee s policy and thus recommend that Mr. Cashion be seen by a mental health professional to assess his need for antipsychotic medication, yet, Dr. Quiñones failed to do so. 34. Mr. Cashion stated that MRRJ staff told him, in response to his repeated requests for his anti-psychotic medication, and his submission of a medical request form, that Dr. Quiñones was backed up and that eventually someone would attend to Mr. Cashion. No one ever attended to Mr. Cashion s mental health needs in nearly two months. 35. As a result of Mr. Cashion not receiving his anti-psychotic medication (or any medication), he suffered a psychotic break during which he banged his head against a prison wall and suffered racing thoughts and loss of short-term memory. 36. As a result of Mr. Cashion not receiving his anti-psychotic medication (or any medication), he became belligerent and confrontational with inmates and thus was placed in solitary confinement, where he experienced more depression and serious negative effects of not taking his anti-psychotic medication. 17 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 17 of 24 Pageid#: 17

18 37. As a result of Mr. Cashion not receiving his anti-psychotic medication (or any medication), he became obstinate with guards. 38. Dr. Quiñones was well aware of Mr. Cashion banging his head against the wall and screaming for help because the incident was reported to Dr. Quiñones, yet Dr. Quiñones refused to prescribe any medication (anti-psychotic or otherwise), and also refused to refer Mr. Cashion to a qualified mental health official for assessment, due to Jack Lee s policy that prohibited said prescription. 39. Dr. Quiñones was well aware of Mr. Cashion banging his head against the wall and screaming for help because the incident was reported to Dr. Quiñones, yet Dr. Quiñones refused to provide Mr. Cashion with any medication at all, including non-prescription medication. 18 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 18 of 24 Pageid#: 18

19 COUNT I VIOLATION OF MR. CASHION S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C 1983 (Federal claim against Defendant Dr. Quiñones) 40. Plaintiff fully incorporates paragraphs 3-39, and any paragraph this Court deems relevant, as fully stated herein to support Plaintiff s Count I. 41. Based on the incorporated paragraphs to support this Count I, Defendant Dr. Quiñones violated Mr. Cashion s right to be free from deliberate indifference to his known serious medical need for his prescribed anti-psychotic medication (or some medication, prescription or otherwise), and said right was clearly established at the time Defendant Dr. Quiñones deliberately failed to provide Mr. Cashion with any medication at all to deal with Mr. Cashion s known severe mental condition. Consequently, Mr. Cashion is entitled to all damages permissible under controlling law, as well as attorney fees and cost regarding this lawsuit. 19 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 19 of 24 Pageid#: 19

20 COUNT II SUPERVISORY LIABILITY REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF MR. CASHION S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C 1983 (Federal claim against Defendant Jack Lee) In a published Opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had this to say about the potential liability of a supervisory official in the context of alleged unconstitutional conduct that causes harm to any person: Recognizing that supervisory liability can extend to the highest levels of state government, we have noted that liability ultimately is determined by pinpointing the persons in the decisionmaking chain whose deliberate indifference permitted the constitutional abuses to continue unchecked. Slakan, 737 F.2d at 376. See Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, (E.D.N.C.1984) (determining issue on supervisory liability is whether defendant proximately caused a violation of the plaintiff's rights by doing something or failing to do something he should have done). Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, (4th Cir. 1994) 42. Plaintiff fully incorporates paragraphs 3-41, and any paragraph this Court deems relevant, as fully stated herein to support Plaintiff s Count II. 43. On top of the incorporated paragraphs to support this Count II, Defendant Jack Lee never approved or created a policy that required Dr. Quiñones to independently assess inmates who have a demonstrated need for prescription 20 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 20 of 24 Pageid#: 20

21 medication to treat medically diagnosed mental illness, in order to determine alternative medications (prescription or otherwise) that could help the said inmates treat their known, medically diagnosed mental illness, such as Mr. Cashion s mental illness. Moreover, Lee failed to implement a policy and procedure to ensure that an incoming inmate whose medical screening demonstrated that said inmate has been prescribed psychotropic medication actually received a follow up visit by a qualified mental health professional to independently determine whether said inmate would be prescribed psychotropic medication while being housed at MRRJ. To the contrary, Lee approved a policy that prohibited MRRJ inmates from receiving prescribed medication by any official contractually associated with MRRJ and as a result Mr. Cashion never received (1) prescription medication to treat his illness or (2) received an independent assessment of his known, medically diagnosed mental illness to determine what medication (prescription or otherwise) was needed to help him deal with his mental illness. As a result of those facts, and all facts used to support this Count II, Jack lee is the person in the decisionmaking chain whose deliberate indifference permitted the constitutional abuses to continue unchecked. Consequently, Mr. Cashion is entitled to all damages permissible under controlling law, as well as attorney fees and cost regarding this lawsuit. 21 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 21 of 24 Pageid#: 21

22 COUNT III RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (State law claim against Defendant MRRJA for the acts of Defendant Dr. Quiñones and Defendant Lee) 44. Plaintiff fully incorporates paragraphs 3-43, and any paragraph this Court deems relevant, as fully stated herein to support Plaintiff s Count III. 45. Defendant Dr. Quiñones was on duty as an employee of MRRJA when he deliberately chose not to prescribe Mr. Cashion any medication (prescription or otherwise) to treat his known mental illness and deliberately chose not to ensure that Mr. Cashion visited a qualified mental health professional to assess Mr. Cashion s need for prescription medication to treat his mental illness. As a result, and also based on the incorporated facts to support this Count III, Mr. Cashion suffered a mental break that caused him to suffer sever injury in a variety of ways. Consequently, MRRJA is potentially liable to Mr. Cashion under the doctrine of respondent superior. MRRJA is also liable to Mr. Cashion for the conduct of Defendant Lee who failed to implement a required policy which ensured that once MRRJ s initial screening process determined that inmates such as Mr. Cashion were taking 22 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 22 of 24 Pageid#: 22

23 prescribed psychotropic (anti-psychotic) medication, those same inmates were immediately seen by a qualified mental health professional to determine whether Mr. Cashion (and other like inmates) should continue taking their prescribed antipsychotic medication. Moreover, Lee s prohibitive policy and omissions caused Dr. Quiñones to (1) deny Mr. Cashion s repeated request for prescription medication to treat his mental illness and (2) fail to refer Mr. Cashion to a mental health professional to assess his mental health needs. COUNT IV PUNITIVE DAMAGES (Against Defendant Dr. Quiñones and Lee individually) Based on the facts alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, under all applicable laws, because Defendants acted with a willful and conscience indifference to the laws that protect Mr. Cashion s Constitutional rights. COUNT V ATTORNEY FEES Based on the facts alleged in this Complaint, Mr. Cashion is entitled to attorney fees, under all applicable laws. WHEREFORE, Mr. Cashion prays for a trial by jury of twelve and judgment against Defendants as follows: 23 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 23 of 24 Pageid#: 23

24 (a) The process issue and service be had on each Defendant; (b) That judgment be granted in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the injuries of Plaintiff; (c) That Plaintiff recover compensatory damages including pain and suffering, lost income and future lost income, and other expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, including attorney fees; (d) Plaintiff be awarded damages for his loss earnings and reduction in his earning capacity from Defendants; (e) That Plaintiff recover all costs of this litigation; (f) That a jury trial be held on all issues so triable; (g) Plaintiff have Judgment against Defendants for punitive damages; and (h) That Plaintiff receives such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted on this 31 st day of January 2017, Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, Esquire, #90172 Nexus Caridades Attorneys, Inc. 113 Mill Place Parkway, Suite 105A Verona, VA Direct (540) , Fax (540) jstoltz@nexuscaridades.com 24 Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 24 of 24 Pageid#: 24

25 JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS ALVION CASHION JACK LEE, in his individual capacity as superintendent of Middle River Regional Jail, Dr. MOISES QUIÑONES, and MIDDLE RIVER REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff AUGUSTA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant AUGUSTA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, Nexus Caridades Attorneys Inc. 113 Mill Place Pkwy., Suite 105A Verona, VA (540) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC (a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation X 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/disabilities Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment 446 Amer. w/disabilities - Other 448 Education V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from Proceeding State Court Other: 462 Naturalization Application 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 550 Civil Rights Actions 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Multidistrict Litigation - Transfer 8 Multidistrict Litigation - Direct File VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 42 USC SECTION 1983 Brief description of cause: DENIAL OF PRECRIPTION MEDICATION AND MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT TO AN INMATE VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. MORE THAN $100,000 JURY DEMAND: Yes No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 01/31/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 25 RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

26 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0 /16) INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) II. III. IV. Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C and Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue. VI. VII. VIII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. Case 5:17-cv MFU Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 26