UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Transcription

1 BENJAMIN W. HAILE, OSB # KENNETH A. KREUSCHER, OSB # SW Morrison St, Ste 407 Portland, OR Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Attorneys for the Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION CHADWICK JAMES YANCEY, v. PLAINTIFF, NORCOR, an intergovernmental entity; WASCO COUNTY, a municipal entity; HOOD RIVER COUNTY, a municipal entity; GILLIAM COUNTY, a municipal entity; SHERMAN COUNTY, a municipal entity; NORCOR SHERIFF S BOARD, an intergovernmental agency; GARY BETTENCOURT; RICK EIESLAND; JOSEPH WAMPLER; BRAD LOHREY; JASON MATTHEWS; LAURA PRYOR; JIM WEED; LARRY LINDHORST; RICK GRAVES; JESUS PULIDO; BRANDIE DRAKE; REBECCA NELSON. Civil No. COMPLAINT FOR Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983): Seizure by Excessive Force, Failure to Adequately Train or Supervise, Deliberate Denial of Adequate Medical Care; Injunctive Relief State Law Torts: Assault, Battery, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. DEFENDANTS. 1 COMPLAINT

2 INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C with supplemental state-law tort claims arising from corrections officers use of excessive force against Plaintiff Chadwick James Yancey (hereinafter Mr. Yancey ) and the deliberate denial of adequate medical care for Mr. Yancey while he was an inmate at Northern Oregon Regional Correctional Facilities (hereinafter NORCOR ). 2. As caught on camera, while Mr. Yancey was sitting at a table restrained in behind-the-back handcuffs and conversing with the shift sergeant (Defendant Drake), a NORCOR corrections officer (Defendant Matthews) interrupted the conversation by verbally provoking Mr. Yancey. The officer guided Mr. Yancey to his feet and without warning or justification forcefully swung him face first into a concrete-block wall, causing severe and lasting physical injuries to Mr. Yancey s head, face, teeth, neck, and shoulders. 3. Another corrections officer (Defendant Pulidio) immediately assisted the first officer (Defendant Matthews) in slamming Mr. Yancey into the wall and in 2 COMPLAINT

3 further assaulting and injuring Mr. Yancey by forcefully pressing him face first into the concrete wall. 4. After dragging Mr. Yancey out of the view of the camera, NORCOR and the corrections officers (Defendants Matthews, Pulido, and Drake) continued to injure and degrade Mr. Yancey by further assaulting him, unnecessarily restraining him, intentionally inflicting emotional distress on him, and then by deliberately ignoring his resulting severe need of medical and dental care. 5. The individual supervisor defendants are liable to Mr. Yancey for their failure to adequately supervise, train, discipline, oversee, and control the abovedescribed corrections officers and for fostering or failing to correct a general jail atmosphere of disrespect for inmates rights and safety and an atmosphere of impunity for abuses of those rights. That atmosphere was created through the tolerance of unnecessary and brutal physical abuse of restrained inmates, sexual harassment of juvenile and adult female inmates, verbal abuse of inmates, intimidation of inmates, and harassment and discrimination against employees. Such a culture of disrespect for inmates rights caused the assault on Mr. Yancey and denial of medical treatment by creating an environment in which officers acted with impunity. 3 COMPLAINT

4 JURISDICTION 6. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 42 U.S.C and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4). 7. Supplemental jurisdiction is asserted for separate state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367; supplemental jurisdiction is also invoked under Oregon state law. VENUE 8. Venue is proper within the District of Oregon, because all of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 9. Specifically, all of the acts and practices alleged herein occurred in the county of Wasco, State of Oregon. THE PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Chadwick James Yancey is an adult and currently resides in Portland, Oregon. 4 COMPLAINT

5 11. Defendant NORCOR is an intergovernmental agency formed by Wasco, Hood River, Gilliam, and Sherman counties pursuant to ORS Chapter 190. NORCOR is a regional adult jail and juvenile detention correction facility complex that serves the four counties. 12. Defendant Wasco County is a municipal entity, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with the capacity to sue and be sued. Wasco County is one of the legal and political entities responsible for the actions of NORCOR and its officials. 13. Defendant Hood River County is a municipal entity, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with the capacity to sue and be sued. Hood River County is one of the legal and political entities responsible for the actions of NORCOR and its officials. 14. Defendant Gilliam County is a municipal entity, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with the capacity to sue and be sued. Gilliam County is one of the legal and political entities responsible for the actions of NORCOR and its officials. 5 COMPLAINT

6 15. Defendant Sherman County is a municipal entity, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with the capacity to sue and be sued. Sherman County is one of the legal and political entities responsible for the actions of NORCOR and its officials. Hereinafter, the four county defendants will be described as the Counties. 16. Defendant NORCOR Sheriff s Board (hereinafter Sheriff s Board ) is an intergovernmental agency formed by the sheriffs, or their designees, for the counties of Wasco, Hood River, Gilliam, and Sherman. The Sheriff s Board has final authority over the operation of NORCOR and the safety of inmates lodged therein. 17. Defendant Sheriff Gary Bettencourt (hereinafter Sheriff Bettencourt ) is the Gilliam County Sheriff, was a member of the NORCOR Sherriff s Board, and was acting under the color of state law during all relevant times. Sheriff Bettencourt is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 6 COMPLAINT

7 18. Defendant Sheriff Rick Eiesland (hereinafter Sheriff Eiesland ) is the Wasco County Sheriff, was a member of the NORCOR Sherriff s Board, and was acting under the color of state law during all relevant times. Sheriff Eiesland is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 19. Defendant Sheriff Joseph Wampler (hereinafter Sheriff Wampler ) is the Hood River County Sheriff, was a member of the NORCOR Sherriff s Board, and was acting under the color of state law during all relevant times. Sheriff Wampler is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 20. Defendant Sheriff Brad Lohrey (hereinafter Sheriff Lohrey ) is the Sherman County Sheriff, was a member of the NORCOR Sherriff s Board, and was acting under the color of state law during all relevant times. Sheriff Lohrey is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 21. Defendant Laura Pryor (hereinafter Administrator Pryor ) was the interim facility administrator of NORCOR and was acting in that capacity under color of state law at the time of the assault on Mr. Yancey by NORCOR correctional officers on April 9, Upon information and belief, Defendant Pryor 7 COMPLAINT

8 continued to be the NORCOR interim facility administrator until late April Defendant Pryor is being sued in her individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 22. Defendant Jim Weed (hereinafter Administrator Weed ) is the current NORCOR facility administrator and has been the facility administrator since, upon information and belief, upon or about April 28, As NORCOR facility administrator, Defendant Weed acts, and was acting, under color of state law. Defendant Weed is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 23. Defendant Captain Larry Lindhorst (hereinafter Captain Lindhorst ) is and was the NORCOR facility commander and was acting under the color of state law during all relevant times. Captain Lindhorst is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 24. Defendant Lieutenant Rick Graves (hereinafter Lieutenant Graves ) was the corrections lieutenant at NORCOR and was acing under the color of state law during all relevant times. Lieutenant Graves is being sued in his individual capacity for supervisory acts or omissions. 8 COMPLAINT

9 25. Defendant Deputy Jason Matthews (hereinafter Deputy Matthews ) was a corrections officer at NORCOR and was acing under the color of state law during all relevant times. Deputy Matthews is being sued in his individual capacity. 26. Defendant Deputy Jesus Pulido (hereinafter Deputy Pulido ) was a corrections officer at NORCOR and was acing under the color of state law during all relevant times. Deputy Pulido is being sued in his individual capacity. 27. Defendant Sergeant Brandie Drake (hereinafter Sergeant Drake ) was a corrections officer at NORCOR and was acing under the color of state law during all relevant times. Sergeant Drake was supposed to have supervised the actions of the deputies on duty. Sergeant Drake is being sued in her individual capacity. 28. Defendant Nurse Practitioner Rebecca (Becky) Nelson (hereinafter Nurse Nelson ) was a certified nurse practitioner on the jail medical staff at NORCOR and was acting under color of law at all relevant times. Nurse Nelson is being sued in her individual capacity. 9 COMPLAINT

10 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 29. On or about April 9, 2009, Mr. Yancey was booked into NORCOR as an inmate in relation to a probation matter involving medical marijuana; Mr. Yancey was not booked into NORCOR for a violent offense or person felony. 30. That evening, Mr. Yancey was seated at a table discussing with Sergeant Drake his jail placement and the conditions in his cell i.e., cell 301 in cell block 300 (aka 300blk ). Visuals of the conversation and many of the events following immediately thereafter were recorded by a video surveillance camera. 31. During the conversation and the events following it, Mr. Yancey s hands were handcuffed behind his back. 32. Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido were standing close by and observed Mr. Yancey s conversation with Sergeant Drake. 33. In the midst of Mr. Yancey and Sergeant Drake s conversation, Deputy Matthews interrupted and began verbally taunting Mr. Yancey by accusing him of 10 COMPLAINT

11 cowardly placing himself in protective custody in cell block 300 and being a punk and a bitch. 34. Mr. Yancey became offended by Deputy Matthew s taunts and began verbally retorting back to Deputy Matthews. 35. Deputy Matthews walked towards Mr. Yancey, and physically guided Yancey up out of his chair. 36. Suddenly, without warning or justification, Deputy Matthews grabbed Mr. Yancey s right arm and shoulder and forcefully pivoted his entire body, thereby swinging Mr. Yancey face first into a concrete-block wall. 37. As Deputy Matthews swung Mr. Yancey into the wall, Deputy Pulido raised his right hand and placed it on the back of Mr. Yancey to add to the force of Mr. Yancey s face-first swing into the concrete-block wall. 38. Mr. Yancey suffered severe injuries when his face, head, and body struck the wall, including the breaking or cracking of at least three teeth and the breaking of his jaw. 11 COMPLAINT

12 39. Mr. Yancey s teeth struck the concrete-block wall and chipped the wall. 40. Sergeant Drake remained seated and watched Deputy Matthew s and Deputy Pulido s actions without intervening or even flinching. 41. Immediately after Yancey was slammed into the wall, Deputy Pulido joined Deputy Matthews in forcefully pressing Mr. Yancey against the concrete-block wall despite the fact that Mr. Yancey was neither resisting nor struggling. 42. Deputy Matthews leaned his head in next to Mr. Yancey s face, grabbed Mr. Yancey s neck and throat with his left hand, and continued to taunt, verbally demean, and threaten Mr. Yancey. 43. Mr. Yancey could not breathe and was further injured by Deputy Matthews grabbing of his neck and throat. 44. Mr. Yancey also suffered from further fear and terror as a result of Deputy Matthews throat grab, face-to-face threats, and actions. 12 COMPLAINT

13 45. Deputy Matthews, with support from Deputy Pulido, next took a hold of Mr. Yancey and dragged him out of the view of the video camera. 46. Out of the view of the video camera, Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido dragged Mr. Yancey to the floor, hit him against another wall, and continued to assault and injure him. 47. While on the floor, Deputies Matthews and Pulido used their bodies, knees, elbows, and hands to bend and twist Mr. Yancey s limbs, back, and head into the floor, causing him further injury. 48. As the deputies took Mr. Yancey to the floor out of view of the camera, Sergeant Drake finally rose from the table, approached, and assisted the deputies during the floor assault, later radioing for restraint devices. 49. Without justification and for the purpose of punishment, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake strapped Mr. Yancey to a restraint chair with a spit hood over his head, took Yancey back to his individual cell (cell 301), and left him alone in the restraints and hood. 13 COMPLAINT

14 50. Approximately 20 minutes later, Mr. Yancey was able to remove one of his hands from the restraints and pull off the hood. Notified of those actions, Sergeant Drake approached Mr. Yancey and spoke with him. 51. Mr. Yancey complained of his pain and injuries to Sergeant Drake, requested medical care, and demanded to be taken to the hospital. 52. Sergeant Drake told Mr. Yancey that he was fine and was not going to go to the hospital, because he did not need medical attention. 53. Sergeant Drake began to clean Mr. Yancey s face of most of the blood and only then taking pictures of his injuries, including pictures of Mr. Yancey s broken and cracked teeth. 54. Soon thereafter, Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido stood in the hallway at the site of the assault. The Deputies laughed, joked, and taunted nearby Mr. Yancey about the fact that his teeth had hit the concrete-block wall, taken chips out of the wall, and that there were shards of Mr. Yancey s teeth stuck in the wall. 14 COMPLAINT

15 55. Deputy Matthews told Mr. Yancey that he took care of punks like Mr. Yancey everyday and that, if fired, he would just sit at home all day and collect unemployment checks. 56. Mr. Yancey s wounds continued to bleed, and he continued to demand medical care. 57. Approximately one hour later, Sergeant Drake alone escorted Mr. Yancey to the hospital. 58. At the hospital, Sergeant Drake informed Mr. Yancey that he was only at the hospital to deal with his lip injury and that he was not to complain of any other injuries; otherwise, she would end the hospital visit and take him back to the jail. 59. As Mr. Yancey tried to report the nature and scope of his injuries to the hospital medical staff, Sergeant Drake told him to shut up and that he would have to go back to jail. 15 COMPLAINT

16 60. A doctor eventually had to tell Sergeant Drake to sit back and let him do his job, which was to examine and analyze Mr. Yancey s reported injuries. 61. A doctor examined Mr. Yancey and found that his shoulder and neck were not fractured but that he had a possible rotator cuff injury. 62. The doctor ordered a sling, icing every four hours, and an orthopedic follow-up visit within 7 to 14 days. The doctor provided Mr. Yancey with a prescription for pain medication. 63. The doctor also ordered that Mr. Yancey see a dentist within 24 to 48 hours for a dental examination and x-ray. 64. The doctor provided Sergeant Drake and NORCOR jail medical staff including, on information and belief, Nurse Nelson with the written medical findings, instructions, and prescriptions described above. 65. Sergeant Drake, Nurse Nelson, and NORCOR medical staff denied Mr. Yancey the sling and ice despite the doctor s orders. 16 COMPLAINT

17 66. Sergeant Drake told Mr. Yancey to not request such medical care and informed him that he would not be able to see a dentist. 67. Moreover, Nurse Nelson and NORCOR acted with deliberate indifference in failing to take Mr. Yancey to a dentist within 24 to 48 hours. 68. After approximately 5 days of Mr. Yancey complaining of, and suffering from, severe dental and mouth pain, Nurse Nelson and NORCOR allowed him to see a dentist. 69. On April 13, 2009, a dentist examined and x-rayed Mr. Yancey s teeth, finding that at least three of his teeth were broken or cracked. 70. Despite the dental diagnosis of broken or cracked teeth, upon return to jail, Nurse Nelson, the jail medical staff, and NORCOR continued to treat Mr. Yancey as if the dental x-rays showed no dental fractures. 17 COMPLAINT

18 71. Mr. Yancey continued to suffer and complain of severe pain from his injuries. On April 30, 2009, Nurse Nelson and NORCOR returned Mr. Yancey to the dentist, who re-examined him and found that he had a fracture in his jaw. 72. Mr. Yancey continues to experience pain and severe damage to his teeth and body, because of the actions of defendants. ALLEGATIONS OF SYSTEMIC AND SUPERVISORY DEFICIENCIES AT NORCOR 73. During 2009 and for several years preceding, upon information and belief, NORCOR, the Counties, the NORCOR Sheriff s Board, and various individual supervisor defendants Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed have allowed, tolerated, or willfully ignored, a NORCOR jail environment directly created by defendants Captain Lindhorst and Lieutenant Graves in which there is disrespect for inmates, a tolerance of physical abuse of restrained inmates, disrespect for fellow employees, a frat house/good-old-boy atmosphere, sexual harassment of female employees, verbal abuse of fellow employees, sexual harassment of adult 18 COMPLAINT

19 female inmates, sexual harassment of juvenile female inmates, age discrimination, verbal abuse of inmates, and intimidation of inmates. 74. Employees who made complaints regarding other corrections officers treatment of inmates or fellow employees were subjected to retaliation by the officers or their superiors who were part of the frat house/good-old-boy network. 75. On January 27, 2007, an employee wrote an anonymous letter to Hood River Commissioner Ron Rivers complaining of the unprofessional conduct by NORCOR staff, and Captain Lindhorst s and Lieutenant Grave s failure to address or respond to the unprofessional conduct. 76. Some of the problems outlined in the letter include, but are not limited to: a. Captain Lindhorst and Lieutenant Grave s unprofessional behavior and deliberate indifference to problems; b. Assaults of restrained inmates; c. Convicted criminals, including felons, on staff; and d. Sexual harassment of female staff and inmates by an officer who later was promoted to Sergeant. 19 COMPLAINT

20 77. Upon information and belief, a Wasco County investigation in Spring of 2007 validated employee concerns about NORCOR management. 78. Upon information and belief, despite the validation of employee concerns, in August 2007, Captain Lindhorst was chosen by an executive decision of the NORCOR Board to fill the vacant jail administrator position. 79. As a result, about ten percent of NORCOR s approximately 68-member workforce contacted Hood River County Commissioner Ron Rivers to express concerns of retaliation with the promotion of Captain Lindhorst. 80. After Commissioner Rivers called into question the executive decision to hire Captain Lindhorst, Captain Lindhorst ultimately did not get the jail administrator job, and Administrator Pryor became the interim facility administrator and remained such (except for an irrelevant several-month break in employment in 2008) until April of As interim facility administrator, defendant Administrator Pryor was responsible for supervising the Captain of the Adult Facility and the Juvenile 20 COMPLAINT

21 Detention Manager, for coordinating budget and contract preparation, and working closely with the NORCOR Sheriff s Board and the NORCOR Juvenile Director s Board to monitor the facilities for compliance with state and federal law. 82. In late April of 2009, Administrator Jim Weed became the facility administrator of NORCOR. 83. Administrator Weed is responsible for supervising the Captain of the Adult Facility and the Juvenile Detention Manager and for coordinating budget and contract preparation, and for working closely with the NORCOR Sheriff s Board and the NORCOR Juvenile Director s Board to monitor the facilities for compliance with state and federal law. 84. Hood River Commissioner Ron Rivers received additional employee complaints, thus prompting another investigation in late As a result, approximately 66 employees were required to complete questionnaires regarding specific problem areas. The questionnaires give detailed accounts of officer misconduct towards both inmates and fellow employees. 21 COMPLAINT

22 85. Captain Lindhorst was not removed from his position as jail captain, was at all relevant times responsible for the daily operations of the NORCOR correctional facility, and continues to supervise all sworn and unsworn personnel assigned to the corrections division. 86. Likewise, during all relevant times, Lieutenant Graves remained in his position, was responsible for the supervision of the Corrections Sergeants, and was responsible for and participated in the daily functions of the NORCOR Facility. 87. In addition to the above-described duties, Captain Lindhorst and Lieutenant Graves were responsible for coordinating with and supervising the jail facility medical staff, who were responsible for ensuring that all necessary medical care was provided to the inmates. 88. Upon information and belief, frontline corrections officers misconduct continued, employees who made complaints regarding the abusive or inappropriate conduct by certain corrections officers were subjected to retaliation for making the complaints, and, as a result of that atmosphere at NORCOR, 22 COMPLAINT

23 corrections officers were not disciplined for misconduct towards inmates, and the misconduct towards inmates was condoned and continued. 89. At no time did the Counties, the County Sherriff s, or the NORCOR Sherriff s board exercise a proper supervisory role in overseeing the atmosphere, day-to-day operations, and policies and procedures of NORCOR or frontline corrections officers. 90. Ultimately, the supervisor defendants failure to train, control, discipline, and properly supervise the jail and NORCOR corrections functions and officers ultimately resulted in, among other incidents of physical abuse of restrained inmates, the above-described assault of Mr. Yancey and the denial of adequate medical care. LEGAL CLAIMS FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Excessive Force Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C (Against Deputy Matthews; Deputy Pulido; and Sergeant Drake) 91. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above. 23 COMPLAINT

24 92. Defendant Deputy Matthews acted wantonly, oppressively, intentionally, and unconstitutionally by slamming Mr. Yancey against a concrete-block wall without justification or warning, by further assaulting and injuring Mr. Yancey and threatening and taunting him when Deputy Matthews pushed Mr. Yancey against the wall, and by continuing to injure and demean Mr. Yancey after the wall slam. 93. Defendant Deputy Pulido acted wantonly, oppressively, intentionally, and unconstitutionally by failing to intervene and instead joining and assisting Deputy Matthews in assaulting Mr. Yancey during and immediately following the wall slam. 94. Defendant Sergeant Drake acted wantonly, oppressively, intentionally, and unconstitutionally by initially sitting by and allowing her fellow officers to repeatedly assault Mr. Yancey without intervening, and then by joining the assault of Mr. Yancey on the floor and by unnecessarily placing Mr. Yancey into restraints. 24 COMPLAINT

25 95. Those unnecessary and unwarranted uses of force were unlawful and excessive under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Unites States Constitution. 96. Furthermore, those unnecessary and unwarranted uses of force violated plaintiff s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 97. The actions of defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake were the direct and proximate cause of his bodily injuries, pain, suffering, mental distress, humiliation, and legal expenses. 98. Accordingly, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and noneconomic damages against defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake in an amount to be determined at trial for the violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for plaintiff s attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C COMPLAINT

26 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Failure to Adequately Train and Supervise Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C (Against NORCOR, the Counties, NORCOR Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves) 99. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above Defendants NORCOR, the Counties, the Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves recklessly failed to train or supervise NORCOR frontline corrections officers, acted with reckless indifference by failing to properly supervise NORCOR frontline corrections employees, and created, fostered, allowed, or sanctioned a hostile environment where problem corrections officers could act in a manner that went virtually unchecked and unsupervised Specifically, defendants failed to provide proper training, supervision, and discipline regarding the lawful use of force Moreover, the failure of defendants to enforce or adopt appropriate policies and training to prevent the unlawful and excessive use of force by NORCOR 26 COMPLAINT

27 corrections officers amounted to deliberate indifference to the safety of inmates and detainees at NORCOR, including Mr. Yancey Specifically, defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Yancey s safety as follows: a. In failing to supervise the corrections officers and/or other officers at NORCOR; b. In failing to implement appropriate policies and procedures; c. In failing to ensure that the corrections officers were following appropriate policies and procedures; d. In allowing NORCOR correction officers to work shifts completely unmonitored with absolutely no command staff present; e. In failing to monitor whether the jail medical staff was properly and adequately providing required medical treatment; and f. In failing to staff NORCOR with properly trained corrections officers; g. In allowing a culture to exist at the jail whereby corrections officers who reported misconduct were subjected to retaliation; h. In allowing Captain Lindhorst to remain in charge of the NORCOR jail in light of the numerous complaints made by employees of the jail; i. In not monitoring Captain Lindhorst s performance; j. In leaving Lieutenant Graves in a supervisory position of the NORCOR jail in light of complaints made by employees of the jail; k. In not monitoring Lieutenant Graves performance; and 27 COMPLAINT

28 l. In failing to have a qualified supervisor to manage the day-to-day affairs of the jail The actions of defendants were in violation of Mr. Yancey s constitutional rights and were the direct and proximate cause of his bodily injury, pain, suffering, mental distress, humiliation, loss of liberty, and legal expenses Accordingly, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and noneconomic damages against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial for the violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount to be determined at trial for the violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for plaintiff s attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Assault and Battery State Law Tort (Against NORCOR, the Counties, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake) 106. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above. 28 COMPLAINT

29 107. As described above, on April 9, 2009, Deputy Matthews intentionally slammed Mr. Yancey face first into a concrete-block wall, causing him severe injuries Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido next intentionally, forcefully, and harmfully pushed Mr. Yancey against the wall while threatening him with further physical injury Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido next intentionally, forcefully, harmfully pulled Mr. Yancey to the floor, struck and manipulated his body so as to cause further injury, and threatened him with further physical injury Sergeant Drake was the nominal supervisor of the two deputies; however, she calmly observed and allowed the deputies to assault and batter Mr. Yancey in the above-described manner and joined them in physically injuring Mr. Yancey while he was on the floor In doing those acts, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake had the intent and ability to make physical, offensive, and injurious contact with 29 COMPLAINT

30 Mr. Yancey s person, to cause him pain, and to cause him fear of further imminent offensive contact Mr. Yancey did not consent to any of the acts of Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake alleged above As a proximate result of the acts of Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake, Mr. Yancey suffered broken and cracked teeth, a fractured jaw, a bruised and injured shoulder and neck, an injured back, severe pain, and various scrapes, contusions, bruises and swelling across on his head, face, lip, wrists, shoulder, hands Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake overreacted and used excessive force against Mr. Yancey Defendants NORCOR and the Counties are the employers of Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake, and are liable for the abovedescribed actions of defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido committed in the scope of their employment. 30 COMPLAINT

31 116. On October 1, 2009, Mr. Yancey gave defendant NORCOR a tort claim notice arising from these events, and, on October 5, 2009, Mr. Yancey received notice that NORCOR had received his tort claim notice The scope of employment of defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake regularly includes the duty of use of force against inmates, therefore defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake were acting within the scope of their employment with NORCOR and the Counties at all relevant times Accordingly, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and noneconomic damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Negligence (supervision of jail and corrections officers) State Law Tort (Against defendants NORCOR, the Counties, the Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves) 119. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above. 31 COMPLAINT

32 120. Defendants NORCOR, the Counties, the Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves had a duty to provide for the reasonable safety of inmates Defendants individually and/or collectively breached that duty as follows: a. In failing to supervise the corrections officers and/or other officers at NORCOR; b. In failing to ensure that the corrections officers were following appropriate policies and procedures; c. In allowing NORCOR correction officers to work shifts completely unmonitored with insufficient supervision or command staff present; d. In failing to monitor corrections officers use of force against restrained inmates; e. In failing to staff NORCOR with properly trained corrections officers; f. In allowing a culture to exist at the jail whereby corrections officers who reported misconduct were subjected to retaliation; g. In allowing Captain Lindhorst to remain in charge of the NORCOR jail s day-to-day operations in light of the numerous complaints made by employees of the jail; h. In not monitoring Captain Lindhorst s performance; i. In leaving Lieutenant Graves in a supervisory position of the NORCOR jail in light of complaints made by employees of the jail; 32 COMPLAINT

33 j. In not monitoring Lieutenant Graves performance; and k. In failing to have a qualified supervisor to manage the day-to-day operations of the jail As a result of the negligence of defendants, Mr. Yancey suffered physical injuries and endured severe physical and mental pain and suffering Accordingly, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and noneconomic damages against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress State Law Tort (Against defendants NORCOR, the Counties, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake) 124. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above As described above, Deputy Matthews slammed Mr. Yancey into a wall, and taunted, demeaned, and threatened Mr. Yancey just prior and immediately after the wall slam Deputy Matthews did so with the intent to cause Mr. Yancey to suffer severe emotional distress and fear. 33 COMPLAINT

34 127. Furthermore, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake threatened and punitively restrained Mr. Yancey immediately following the wall slam In doing so, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on Mr. Yancey As well, Sergeant Drake s intentionally made threats to withhold medical care from Mr. Yancey if he disclosed the true nature of his injuries to the doctors and hospital staff, which added to Mr. Yancey s severe emotional distress Mr. Yancey was particularly vulnerable and fearful given the nature of the inmate-guard correctional relationship with Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake At least one or more of NORCOR s written or unwritten practices and policies facilitated the frontline corrections officer s intentional infliction of emotional distress on Mr. Yancey. 34 COMPLAINT

35 132. Defendants NORCOR and the Counties are the employers of Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake, and are liable for the abovedescribed actions of defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido committed in the scope of their employment As a result of the above, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and non-economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Denial of Adequate Medical Care Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C (Against defendants Sergeant Drake, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Nurse Nelson) 134. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above Sergeant Drake, Deputy Matthews, and Deputy Pulido observed and knew of Mr. Yancey s injuries, including his broken teeth Mr. Yancey repeatedly complained of his medical needs, injuries, and severe pain to Sergeant Drake, Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, Nurse Nelson, and NORCOR jail medical staff. 35 COMPLAINT

36 137. Following Mr. Yancey s injuries sustained in the wall slam and in the subsequent assaults, Sergeant Drake took detailed and close-up pictures of Mr. Yancey s injuries, including his dental injuries Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido taunted Mr. Yancey about his injuries, including his dental injuries Specifically, as alleged above, Deputy Matthews and Deputy Pulido looked at blood splatter in the hallway and laughed, joked, and taunted nearby Mr. Yancey about the fact that his teeth had hit the concrete-block wall, taken chips out of the wall, and that there were shards of Mr. Yancey s teeth stuck in the wall On the night of April 9, 2009, about one hour after being photographed by Sergeant Drake, a doctor at the hospital examined Mr. Yancey and ordered medical treatment, including frequent and repeated icing, pain medication, a sling, a follow up orthopedic visit within 7 to 14 days, and a dental examination within 24 to 48 hours. 36 COMPLAINT

37 141. The hospital provided Mr. Yancey, Sergeant Drake, and NORCOR medical staff with a copy of those written medical orders Upon information and belief, Nurse Nelson received or had access and notice of those medical orders Despite the doctor s orders, NORCOR, Sergeant Drake, and Nurse Nelson refused to provide Mr. Yancey with a sling, frequent and repeated icing, prescription pain relief, a follow up orthopedic visit within 7 to 14 days, and a dental examination within 24 to 48 hours Moreover, despite Mr. Yancey s complaints and obvious and known dental injuries, defendants refused to provide Mr. Yancey with a straw or liquefied nutrition, causing Mr. Yancey to suffer great hunger, hunger pains, loss of health and strength, and further emotional distress As indicated above, after approximately 5 days of severe pain, inability to eat, difficulty drinking, and complaints by Mr. Yancey, Nurse Nelson and NORCOR finally allowed Mr. Yancey to see a dentist. 37 COMPLAINT

38 146. As described above, defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Yancey s medical needs in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution At least one or more of NORCOR s written or unwritten practices and policies were a cause of the deliberate indifference to Mr. Yancey s critical injuries and serious medical needs and, ultimately, a cause of his continuing pain, in violation of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution As a result of the above, Mr. Yancey is entitled to an award of compensatory economic and non-economic and punitive damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, Mr. Yancey should be awarded its attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs against defendants. 38 COMPLAINT

39 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Negligence (medical issues frontline employees) State Law Tort (Against NORCOR, the Counties, Sergeant Drake, Nurse Nelson, Deputy Matthews, and Deputy Pulido) 149. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above NORCOR, the Counties, Sergeant Drake, Nurse Nelson, Deputy Matthews, and Deputy Pulido had a duty to provide for essential and reasonable medical care of inmates at NORCOR Defendants breached that duty by being unreasonably negligent in failing to provide Mr. Yancey with medical care as ordered by the doctor As alleged above, those defendants were aware of Mr. Yancey s injuries, severe pain, and inability to eat yet unreasonably failed to provide him with suitable medical care, nutrition, and pain medication Those defendants were aware of Mr. Yancey s dental injuries, severe pain, and inability to eat yet unreasonably failed to provide him with prompt dental care, as ordered by the doctor. 39 COMPLAINT

40 154. Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and other frontline corrections officers repeatedly taunted, belittled, and threatened Mr. Yancey on the subject of his medical injuries, his hunger, and inability to eat Defendants NORCOR and the Counties are the employers of Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido, and Sergeant Drake, and are liable for the abovedescribed actions of defendants Deputy Matthews, Deputy Pulido committed in the scope of their employment As a result of the above, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and non-economic damages against defendants in amounts to be determined at trial. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Negligence (medical issues supervisors) State Law Tort (Against NORCOR, the Counties, the Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves) 157. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above. 40 COMPLAINT

41 158. Defendants NORCOR, the Counties, the Sheriff s Board, Sheriff Bettencourt, Sheriff Eiesland, Sheriff Wampler, Sheriff Lohrey, Administrator Pryor, Administrator Weed, Captain Lindhorst, and Lieutenant Graves had a duty to ensure that NORCOR provided essential and reasonable medical care for its inmates Defendants individually and/or collectively breached that duty in the following ways: a. In failing to supervise frontline corrections officers and jail medical staff in their treatment of injured inmates, including Mr. Yancey; b. In failing to ensure that the corrections officers and jail medical staff were following medically reasonable policies and procedures; c. In failing to staff NORCOR with properly trained medical staff, including a board certified doctor; d. In allowing a culture to exist at the jail whereby Mr. Yancey s medical complaints were summarily dismissed, ignored, and belittled As a result of the negligence of defendants, Mr. Yancey suffered increased injury and endured severe physical and mental pain and suffering. 41 COMPLAINT

42 161. Accordingly, Mr. Yancey is entitled to compensatory economic and noneconomic damages against defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Injunctive Relief Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; 42 U.S.C (Against defendants NORCOR, the Counties, and the Sheriff s Board) 162. As applicable, plaintiff incorporates the above Plaintiff hereby requests that NORCOR and its respective employees and officials take immediate, voluntary steps to adhere to the requirements of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by effectuating the following: a. NORCOR and its officials shall prohibit the use of wall slam techniques to control, punish, or intimidate merely nonresponsive, slow, or passive inmates. b. NORCOR and its officials shall implement and operate an effective early warning or intervention system to identify and take necessary and appropriate action with respect to employees and corrections officers with high use of force rates to prevent those officers from engaging in or allowing unlawful and unconstitutional conduct. c. NORCOR and its officials shall implement and operate a thorough, independent, and effective review system to investigate injuries to inmates caused by the correction officers use of physical force. d. NORCOR and its officials shall change and/or supplement any written policy, official practice, or training it gives to its officers, to 42 COMPLAINT

43 ensure that restrained inmates are treated fairly, with general respect, and with respect to their safety. e. NORCOR and its officials shall change the current use of force policies that do not have the corrections officers take into account whether an inmate is restrained. The new written policy should prohibit NORCOR employees and corrections officers striking restrained inmates or slamming the restrained inmates body parts against walls, floors, doors, tables, and other such objects. f. NORCOR and its officials shall change its current, written policy which does not include as deadly physical force the use of hands, feet, or wall slams, spins and swings of the inmate s body to make or cause impact strikes to the head and other vital areas such as the chest and back. The new written policy should prohibit NORCOR employees and corrections officers from using their hands, their feet, wall slams, spins, or swings of the inmate to make impact strikes to the inmate s head and other vital areas such as the chest, ribs or back unless the NORCOR employees and corrections officers have probable cause to believe the person poses an immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury to some other person Depending upon the response to plaintiff s requests, described immediately above, and other information that is learned during the course of the litigation, Mr. Yancey will seek injunctive relief and ask the federal court to order defendants NORCOR and NORCOR Sheriff s Board and its employees and officials to make the necessary changes to their policies and official practices, to prevent further egregious violations of the constitutional rights, including the severe injury, of inmates. 43 COMPLAINT

44 165. To the extent that it may be necessary, plaintiff also will request the federal court to retain continuing jurisdiction and oversight over the operation of NORCOR in the respects described above, to ensure that the changes are implemented in a timely and effective manner If plaintiffs decide to seek injunctive relief, they should be awarded their attorney fees and litigation expenses/costs against defendants NORCOR and NORCOR Sheriff s Board pursuant to 42 U.S.C ALL COUNTS 167. Plaintiff requests a trial by a jury of his peers on his claims for relief. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 1. Findings and Orders against defendants that they violated the protected constitutional rights of Plaintiff, causing him economic and non-economic damages; 2. Findings and Orders that the NORCOR policies were defective as applied and caused constitutional deprivations to be suffered by Plaintiff and injunctive relief is required to prevent recurring violations; 44 COMPLAINT

45 3. An award of non-economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 4. An award of economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 5. Plaintiff s costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees. 6. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 7. Such other and further relief, including all appropriate equitable relief, as the Court may deem proper and just. Dated this 24 th day of March, Respectfully submitted, PORTLAND LAW COLLECTIVE, LLP KENNETH A. KREUSCHER OSB # BENJAMIN W. HAILE OSB # Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant 45 COMPLAINT