Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 1 of 19

Transcription

1 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 1. SAMUEL POWELL, ) 2. DEREK SCHELL, ) 3. CODIE SHREVE, ) 14-CV-535-JED-PJC 4. PATRICK HARVEY, and ) 5. AARON JONES, ) ) Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiffs, ) Attorney Lien Claimed v. ) ) 1. AVALON CORRECTIONAL ) SERVICES, INC., ) 2. DONALD COFFMAN, ) 3. TERRY MOORE, and ) 4. LT. JONES, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs, Samuel Powell, Derek Schell, Codie Shreve, Patrick Harvey and Aaron Jones, by and through their attorneys of record, and for their causes of action against Defendants, allege and state as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C to secure protection of and to redress deprivations of rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as enforced by 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides for the protection of all persons in their civil rights and the redress of deprivation of rights under color of law. 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under 28 U.S.C to resolve a controversy arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, particularly the

2 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 2 of 19 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, since the claims form part of the same case or controversy arising under the United States Constitution and federal law. 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this Complaint occurred in the Northern District of Oklahoma. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Samuel Powell is now a resident of Canadian County, Oklahoma and at all times material to the events alleged in this Complaint, was living at Avalon Correctional Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 5. Plaintiff Derek Schell is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and at all times material to his claims alleged in this Complaint, he was living at Avalon Correctional Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 6. Plaintiff Codie Shreve is currently a resident of Muskogee, Oklahoma. At all times material to his claims alleged in this Complaint, he was living at Avalon Correctional Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 7. Plaintiff Patrick Harvey is currently an inmate at Jackie Brannon Correctional Center in McAlester, Oklahoma. At all times material to his claims alleged in this Complaint, he was living at Avalon Correctional Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 8. Plaintiff Aaron Jones is currently an inmate at James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. At all times material to his claims alleged in this Complaint, he was living at Avalon Correctional Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2

3 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 3 of Defendant, Avalon Correctional Services, Inc., ( ACSI ) is an Oklahoma corporation that owns and operates Avalon Correctional Center ( Avalon Tulsa ) located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and other halfway houses in Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming. At all times material to the events alleged in this Complaint, Avalon Correctional Center provides contract services to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections ( ODOC ) to house and provide supervision and control over ODOC inmates. By virtue of its contract with ODOC, ACSI has assumed ODOC s constitutionally mandated obligations to provide for the health and safety of those in custody. ACSI is responsible for the training, supervision, and discipline of Avalon Tulsa staff regarding all aspects of halfway house operations including, but not limited to, appropriate conduct of administrators and guards, properly monitoring drug possession, use and sales within its facility, proper discipline of inmates, residents and employees, and the proper use of force and misconduct write-ups. Additionally, ACSI is responsible for complying with Oklahoma state law, including 57 Okla. Stat. 31, the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions, implementing ODOC policies and procedures and the American Correctional Association ( ACA ) Standards within Avalon Tulsa. Avalon Tulsa and ACSI were, at all times relevant, acting under color of state law. ACSI is liable for the acts of its employees committed in the scope of their employment and its policies and procedures that resulted in the injuries and the claims of the Plaintiffs. 10. Defendant Donald Coffman ( Administrator or Defendant Coffman ) was, at all times relevant, employed by ACSI as administrator of Avalon Tulsa. Defendant Coffman is sued in his individual capacity and as an employee of ACSI. As Administrator of Avalon Tulsa, Defendant Coffman is responsible for ensuring the safety and well being 3

4 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 4 of 19 of all inmates residing in Avalon Tulsa. Defendant Coffman is also responsible for training, supervision, and discipline of all Avalon Tulsa staff regarding all aspects of operations including, but not limited to, assuring the health and safety of inmates, appropriate conduct, discipline of residents, and drug possession, use and sales among residents and staff. Additionally, as administrator, Defendant Coffman, is responsible for implementing ACSI and ODOC policies and procedures and following ACA Standards for Community Corrections Institutions, within Avalon Tulsa. Defendant Coffman was, at all times relevant, acting under color of state law. Finally upon information and belief, Defendant Coffman personally participated in: illegal drug sales to and among residents and guards; extortion of residents through exchanging manipulated urinalysis results for cash; disciplining residents through violence and beatings at the hands of other inmates (code-named taking you to court ); selecting participants for and gambling on resident s fighting each other on so-called fight nights ; and, altering misconduct reports so that residents would be forced to stay at Avalon Tulsa, rather than being shipped to other facilities, so that Avalon Tulsa would receive income from the occupied bed space. 11. Defendant Terry Moore ( Defendant Moore ), was at all times relevant, acting under color of state law as an employee of Defendant ACSI at Avalon Tulsa. Defendant Moore is sued in his individual capacity and as an employee of ASCI. Upon information and belief, Defendant Moore, individually and acting in concert with Defendants Coffman and Jones, personally participated in illegal drug sales to and among residents and guards, extortion of residents through exchanging manipulated urinalysis results for cash, disciplining residents through violence and beatings at the hands of other inmates code-named taking you to court, selecting participants for and gambling on resident s 4

5 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 5 of 19 fighting each other on so-called fight nights and fixing misconducts so that residents would be forced to stay at Avalon Tulsa rather than being shipped to other facilities so that Avalon Tulsa would receive income from the occupied bed space. 12. Defendant Lt. Jones ( Defendant Jones ), was at all times relevant, acting under color of state law as an employee of Defendant ACSI at Avalon Tulsa. Defendant Jones is sued in his individual capacity and as an employee of ASCI. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jones, individually and acting in concert with Defendants Coffman and Moore, personally participated in: illegal drug sales to and among residents and guards; extortion of residents through exchanging manipulated urinalysis results for cash;, disciplining residents through violence and beatings at the hands of other inmates codenamed taking you to court ; selecting participants for and gambling on resident s fighting each other on so-called fight nights ; and, fixing misconducts so that residents would be forced to stay at Avalon Tulsa rather than being shipped to other facilities so that Avalon Tulsa would receive income from occupied bed space. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13. Avalon Tulsa, a residential community treatment facility operated by Defendant Avalon, is intended to assist in reintegrating non-violent offenders from traditional prisons back into society as law-biding citizens and break the cycle of crime and reincarceration. To perform this important function, Defendant Avalon has been paid millions of dollars of tax payer money. Instead of providing this service to the inmates that it housed and to the citizens of Oklahoma who paid for that service, Avalon operated a facility where crime and violence were rampant and inmates were housed in a facility 5

6 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 6 of 19 where open drug use and violence were pervasive and managed and controlled by corrupt officials and subjected to corporal punishment. Pervasive drug use was not only tolerated by Defendants, they encouraged and, in some cases, facilitated it. By virtue of being housed in this environment all of these Plaintiffs were physically and emotionally harmed, were denied or delayed parole or release, and their eventual reintegration into society made more difficult. 14. On information and belief, Defendants used drugs as a means of controlling the inmates. 15. On information and belief, the individual Defendants directly sold drugs to inmates or facilitated drug sales among inmates so that the inmates would be indebted to the individual Defendants. 16. On information and belief, the individual Defendants would sell clean urinalysis reports and/or would skip testing for those who paid the individual Defendants and others. 17. On information and belief, if the inmates didn t pay the fee to the individual Defendants, they were forced to take urinalysis tests that the individual Defendants knew would test positive. 18. On information and belief, the individual Defendants would then have an inmate taken to court for his positive drug test. 19. On information and belief, the inmate would be taken to court or be forced to fight on a fight night rather than sent back to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections so that Defendants could keep the Avalon bed full and collect the revenue from the State of Oklahoma. 6

7 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 7 of On information and belief, if an inmate refused to fight on fight night, he would be taken to court himself or would be given a severe disciplinary charge. 21. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 as though fully set forth herein. Samuel Powell 22. On or about November 6, 2013, Defendant Moore approached Mr. Powell and instructed Mr. Powell was told to handle Bobby Hill, another resident of Avalon Tulsa, and take him to court. Defendant Moore made it clear that by handle and take to court, he wanted Mr. Powell to beat up Mr. Hill. 23. Mr. Powell told Defendant Moore that he did not want to fight Mr. Hill and had no reason to do so. Defendant Moore told Mr. Powell that if he did not do as instructed, then the time he had to serve would be increased. Mr. Powell only had one month left to serve at Avalon Tulsa before he would be a free man and get to go home to his family. 24. Not wanting to have his time increased, Mr. Powell found Mr. Hill and they began to fight. Mr. Hill was knocked out but Mr. Powell s right bicep was torn when he punched Mr. Hill with an uppercut. As a result, Mr. Powell had to go to the emergency room for medical treatment. 25. Defendant Moore instructed Mr. Powell to tell the others on the staff that his bicep was torn lifting weights. Again, scared about his time being increased, Mr. Powell did tell the other staff that he tore his bicep while lifting weights. 26. On or about November 14, 2013, some of Mr. Hill s friends came seeking revenge. One of Mr. Hill s friends threw a punch at Mr. Powell but Mr. Powell ducked and avoided the punch. Mr. Powell then defended himself and hit his attacker two times in 7

8 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 8 of 19 the face, swelling the man s eye shut. The attacker was sent to the hospital for treatment. 27. Defendant Moore and Defendant Jones told Mr. Powell not to worry about this incident because it stemmed from Mr. Powell taking Mr. Hill to court. The next day, Defendant Moore locked up Mr. Powell in solitary confinement and told him that Defendant Jones was fixing this situation. Defendant Moore and Defendant Jones continued to tell Powell to fight other men during this time. Mr. Powell refused to do so because his bicep was still torn and causing great pain. Three weeks later, Mr. Powell was served with a Class X violation for both fights. Mr. Powell s many requests for medical treatment of the bicep were ignored and he missed the window in which the bicep could have been surgically reattached properly. 28. Mr. Powell s bicep will never be able to be reattached and is permanently damaged. Derek Schell 29. On or about November 24, 2013, Defendant Coffman went to Mr. Schell and told him that Mr. Schell was going to beat some people up as Defendant Coffman s enforcer. At first Mr. Schell refused to fight for Defendant Coffman. Defendant Coffman threatened Mr. Schell that if he didn t fight as instructed, then Defendant Coffman would have Mr. Schell s time to serve extended. Under Coffman s threat to delay Mr. Schell s release, he engaged in multiple fights with the individuals that Defendant Coffman wanted taken to court. 30. Mr. Schell injured his thumb badly during one of the forced fights. Mr. Schell sought medical treatment for his thumb, which Defendant Coffman denied. When Mr. Schell finally did receive medical treatment, it was too late to properly repair resulting in permanent injury. 8

9 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 9 of 19 Codie Shreve 31. In October 2013, Defendant Coffman s chief enforcer, a resident of Avalon Benjamin Frair ( Frair ), at the direction of Defendants Coffman and Jones, physically beat Mr. Shreve. 32. Mr. Shreve was hurt during this taking to court by Frair and others at the direction of Defendants Coffman and Jones. Mr. Shreve was in fear for his life and attempted to file a separatee order on Benjamin Friar. A separatee order should have resulted in Avalon Tulsa protecting Mr. Shreve, separating him from Frair, and as soon as practicable, one of them should have been transferred to another facility. 33. On or about November 14, 2013, Frair approached Mr. Shreve and told him that Mr. Shreve needed to pick up some drugs for Frair, including but not limited to, K-2, while Mr. Shreve was out of the facility for work that night. When Mr. Shreve declined the invitation to become a drug mule for Frair, Frair told Mr. Shreve that Frair would make sure Shreve s time to serve increased if he refused. 34. Frair advised Mr. Shreve that Defendant Moore would be working that night and that Defendant Moore told Frair that he would not search Mr. Shreve upon his re-entry to Avalon Tulsa. Mr. Shreve again declined to be a drug mule for Frair. Frair then threatened Mr. Shreve with physical violence. 35. Mr. Shreve advised Defendant Moore at least four (4) times that night that he was, and had been, in fear for his life and requesting a separatee order from Frair. Instead of giving Mr. Shreve a separatee order or grievance form, Defendant Moore refused to give him either and told Frair what Mr. Shreve said about Frair. Mr. Shreve continued to live in fear for his safety and life. 9

10 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 10 of 19 Patrick Harvey 36. In approximately October 2013, Mr. Harvey was taken to court and beaten by several other Avalon Tulsa residents at the direction of Defendants Coffman, Moore and Jones. Mr. Harvey suffered several facial injuries from this beating. 37. On or about October 13, 2013, Mr. Harvey was instructed to go to Room 13. Upon his arrival, Mr. Harvey was punched in the face and threatened by another resident of Avalon Tulsa. This other resident told Mr. Harvey that he was working at the direction of Defendant Jones. This other resident told Mr. Harvey that he was to go outside and give money to and pick up a package from a certain car that would be in the parking lot. According to the resident who punched Mr. Harvey in the face, a resident named Lucky had made a deal with Defendant Jones to sell the drugs within Avalon Tulsa In great fear of another beating directed by Defendant Jones and/or other individual Defendants, Mr. Harvey took the money to the car as he was instructed. 39. Defendant Jones then stopped Mr. Harvey on the way back into Avalon Tulsa and searched him with a laugh. Defendant Jones said Mr. Harvey was going to have to pay him significant money to get out of this one. Defendant Jones did not find any drugs on Harvey and Plaintiff Harvey did not pay him any money. Mr. Harvey was given a Class X violation for alleged possession of controlled dangerous substances. As a result, his release from custody has been delayed. Aaron Jones 40. In approximately August 2013, Defendants Moore and Jones were requiring residents of Avalon Tulsa, including Mr. Jones, to pay $40 to each of them to pass Jones urinalysis tests. If the money was not paid, Defendants Moore and Jones would falsify 10

11 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 11 of 19 reports. 41. On or about August 17, 2013, Defendants Moore and Jones ordered Benjamin Frair and another resident to take [Mr. Jones] to court. Mr. Jones was badly beaten in Room 8 while Defendants Jones and Moore stood guard at the door and watched the beating take place. Following the beating, Mr. Jones feared for his safety. 42. In approximately September 2013, Defendants Jones and Moore directed Benjamin Frair to pick two other residents to help him take Codie Shreve and another resident to court. Benjamin Frair picked Mr. Jones and a Mr. Townsley and forced them to fight Shreve and the other resident. 43. Frair, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Townsley went into Room 8 with Mr. Shreve and the other inmate and began fighting. Defendant Jones guarded the door and watched the fight. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Denial of Due Process in Violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) A. Allegations applicable to Defendant ACSI 44. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 43 as though thoroughly set forth herein. 45. ACSI is a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C At all times material hereto, ACSI was acting under color of state law. 47. ACSI is charged with care and supervision of residents housed within its halfway house. ACSI is responsible for the training, supervision, and discipline of its 11

12 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 12 of 19 employees. 48. As ACSI s Administrator, Defendant Coffman, is and was charged with the policy and ultimate decision-making responsibilities at ACSI s Avalon Tulsa facility. 49. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the individual Defendants being deliberately indifferent to the safety and health of Plaintiffs, violating Plaintiffs rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States, were the direct and proximate result of customs, policies, and/or practices of ACSI by and through their employees and/or agents. At all times relevant, Defendant Coffman was an ACSI decision maker charged with the responsibility for making and implementing decisions on behalf of ACSI. 50. Such policies, customs and/or practices include, but are not limited to, ACSI s failure to adequately train, supervise and discipline staff regarding the appropriate ways to: discipline and supervise residents, control inmates fighting, not to bet on and/or condone residents fighting, not to extort residents for monetary gain, and or the use of phony disciplinary write-ups to aid in their extortion practices, to provide appropriate and necessary medical care, corporal punishment, failure to allow inmates to file grievances and separatee orders 51. ACSI tacitly encouraged, ratified or approved the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, knew that such conduct was unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights, Oklahoma state law, severe injuries, evince deliberate indifference to inmates health and safety and constitute cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned customs, policies and/or 12

13 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 13 of 19 practices, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein. 53. Defendant ACSI and its administrator, Defendant Coffman, and its employees Defendants Jones and Moore, at all times acting under color of state law, were deliberately indifferent and knew of the potential for harm to residents such as Plaintiffs from the lack of adequate training, supervision, discipline and policies and/or practices regarding the conduct of taking residents to court, betting on fights among residents fighting at Defendants direction, extorting money and making false reports. 54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct and deliberate indifference to the risk of harm, Plaintiffs were subjected to corporal punishment, suffered severe physical injuries, from being forced to fight, forced to take other residents to court, being taken to court by other residents, and receive false misconducts, are being held without due process and continue to suffer severe emotional distress and mental anguish in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. B. Allegations Specific to Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones 55. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 54, as if fully set forth herein. 56. Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones, acting under color of state law and within the scope of their employment with ACSI, were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs health and safety and subjected the Plaintiffs to corporal punishment by directing other residents, to inflict serious injuries and wanton and unnecessary pain and suffering. Defendant Coffman authorized, and Defendants Moore and Jones gave the commands to residents to fight other residents. 57. Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones acted maliciously and sadistically when 13

14 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 14 of 19 they forced residents to fight each other, or as they called it be taken to court, and they held other fight nights wherein they would choose competitors to fight and then bet on the outcomes. The individual Defendants chose both the victims and the attackers and threatened each with false misconduct reports if a resident refused to fight. Without justification and with full knowledge of the high risk of serious harm or death to Plaintiffs, the individual Defendants actions amount to cruel and unusual punishment of the Plaintiffs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 58. At least in a State such as Oklahoma where State law clearly proscribes the use of corporal punishment, Title 57 O.S.A. 31, the use of corporal punishment on inmates is also cruel and unusual within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Battle v. Anderson, 376 F.Supp. 402, 423 (E.D.Okl. 1974). 59. As a direct and proximate result of the individual Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs experienced and continue to experience severe physical injuries, disfigurement and pain, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, are being held without due process and the damages alleged herein. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Cause of Action-Violation of Article II 7, 9 and 30 of Constitution of the State of Oklahoma-Cruel and Unusual Punishment (All Defendants) 60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 59, as though fully set forth herein. 61. Section 7 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution secures a private right of action for Plaintiffs, and all other inmates and residents of halfway houses, not to have their life or liberty taken without due process of law, including the right to be free from 14

15 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 15 of 19 excessive force. See, Bosh v. Cherokee County Building Authority, 2013 OK 9, 305 P.3d Section 9 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution secures a private right of action for Plaintiffs, and all other inmates or residents of halfway houses who are in custody, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including but not limited to, the right to be free from excessive force. Id. 63. Section 30 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution secures a private right of action for Plaintiffs, and all other inmates or residents of halfway houses, to be free from unreasonable seizures, which includes protection from the use of excessive force or to be held in custody without due process. Id. 64. Under Oklahoma law, Defendant ACSI is liable for the acts of its employees, Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones, which were done within the scope of their employment. Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones actions were: at all times fairly and naturally incident to ACSI s business as a private halfway house operator under contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; and occurred while they were in routine business operations of Avalon Tulsa. These activities were well within the scope of their employment and customary in ACSI s business of owning and operating private halfway houses. 65. Defendants actions, as alleged herein, of authorizing and commanding residents to fight each other for discipline, sport and betting purposes, was an excessive use of force, contrary to DOC policy, ACA standards, and accepted standards for the use of force in halfway houses and a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. 66. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants violations of the Oklahoma 15

16 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 16 of 19 Constitution, Plaintiffs suffered physical injuries, pain and suffering, and disfigurement. Plaintiffs continue to experience physical pain, disfigurement, severe emotional and mental distress and anguish, and are being held without due process of law. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Cause of Action-Assault (Individual Defendants) 67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66, as though fully set forth herein. 68. Individual Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones acted with either the intent of making a harmful/offensive contact with Plaintiffs, or with the intent of putting Plaintiffs in apprehension of such contact when Coffman, Moore, and Jones forced Plaintiffs to be taken to court, take others to court, and/or forced to fight. 69. Plaintiffs were placed in apprehension of immediate harmful/offensive contact with his person and/or caused to suffer fright and terror by the conduct of Individual Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones when they forced Plaintiffs to be taken to court, take others to court, and/or fight. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Cause of Action-Battery (Individual Defendants) 70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69, as though fully set forth herein 71. Individual Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones, without the consent of Plaintiffs, acted either with the intent of making a harmful/offensive contact with the person of Plaintiffs, or with the intent of putting plaintiffs in apprehension of such a contact when Individual Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones, forced Plaintiffs to be 16

17 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 17 of 19 taken to court, be taken to court, and/or fight. 72. Individual Defendants Coffman, Moore, and Jones actions in forcing Plaintiffs to be taken to court, be taken to court, and/or fight resulted in harmful/offensive contact with Plaintiffs. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 73. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72, as though fully set forth herein. 74. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages on his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C and under state law as Defendants conduct, acts and/or omissions alleged herein constitute malicious and/or reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiffs federally protected rights as well as his rights protected by the Constitution and laws of Oklahoma. WHEREORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant him the relief sought, including, but not limited to, actual damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), with interest accruing from the date of filing suit, punitive damages in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), reasonable attorney fees, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. Date: 09/08/14 s/scott A. Graham Scott A. Graham, OBA No THE FIRM ON BALTIMORE, PLLC 1811 S. Baltimore Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma Phone: (918) Fax: (800) scott@lawtulsa.com 17

18 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 18 of 19 s/louis W. Bullock with permission by Scott A. Graham Louis W. Bullock, OBA No Patricia W. Bullock, OBA N The Bullock Law Firm 110 West Seventh Street, Suite 107 Tulsa, Oklahoma Phone: (918) Fax: (918) lbullock@bullock- blakemore.com pbullock@bullock- blakemore.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 18

19 Case 4:14-cv JED-PJC Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/08/14 Page 19 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of September, 2014, I electronically transmitted the above document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all of the ECF registrants entered in the case. s/scott A. Graham Scott A. Graham 19