UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMAAL KING, CASE NO. 4:19-cv-00488-RH -MJF

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; CORIZON 

HEALTH INC.; and CENTURION

OF FLORIDA, LLC, 

Defendants.

_________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JAMAAL KING, hereby sues Defendants, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORIZON HEALTH INC. and

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action brought under the 29 U.S.C. §794, 42 U.S.C.

§12131, et seq., U.S.C. Const. Amend. 8; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983., and the common 

law of Florida.

2. This action was initially brought in the Circuit Court for the Second 

Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, and then removed to this court.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 47
2

PARTIES

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, JAMAAL KING, has been a 

resident of Florida, and he is sui juris.

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS (“DOC”), has been organized and existing under the laws of 

Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant received and utilized in 

conducting its functions as provided by law federal financial assistance, such 

assistance received for the purposes of assisting some or all of the programs and 

activities of Defendant. On information and belief, the funds received constituting 

such federal financial assistance were deposited into a general fund or account 

managed by or on behalf of Defendant.

5. During part of the time relevant to this action from the date of 

Plaintiff’s incarceration in March 2014, through May 31, 2016, Defendant, 

CORIZON HEALTH INC. was providing medical services under contract with 

Defendant DOC. The medical staff at all of Defendant DOC facilities in which 

Plaintiff was housed from March 2014 through May 31, 2016 were employees of 

Defendant CORIZON. 

6. During part of the time relevant to this action from April 2016 until 

Plaintiff transferred to a GEO facility, i.e., Blackwater CI, on November 8, 2017, 

Defendant, CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, was providing medical services to 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 47
3

inmates within DOC under contract with Defendant DOC. As of April 2016, 

Defendant Centurion continued to provide medical services for DOC until at least 

the time Plaintiff transferred to Blackwater. The medical staff at all of Defendant 

DOC’s facilities in which Plaintiff was housed from April 2016 through November 

8, 2017 were employees of Defendant CENTURION. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

7. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been satisfied or 

waived.

BACKGROUND FACTS

8. On or about March 10, 2014, upon intake and examination at the DOC 

Reception and Medical Center (RMC), staff noted Plaintiff was legally blind in his 

right eye with vision in that eye being 20/400. His poor eyesight was due to a 

cataract that was believed to have been operable. During this intake, Plaintiff also 

had a seizure lasting approximately three minutes. Staff at RMC witnessed the 

seizure. 

9. Defendant Corizon was the medical provider for DOC under contract 

from the time that Plaintiff entered a DOC facility until May 31, 2016.

10. On or about March 13, 2014, while still at RMC, Plaintiff received a 

low bunk pass due to his history of seizures.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 47
4

11. Due to Plaintiff’s history of seizures, when incarcerated, it was 

imperative that he be housed on a lower rather than upper bunk, and for that 

reason, he requested a lower bunk “pass” on a repeated basis starting as early as 

March 2014. Thus, Defendants DOC and Corizon had been continuously made 

aware of Plaintiff’s medical conditions, including his history of seizures, since that 

time.

12. On or about May 6, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to Liberty 

Correctional Institute (“LCI”). He arrived at LCI with a low bunk pass. 

13. On or about May 29, 2014, Plaintiff had a second seizure and was 

found on the floor of his cell. He was noted to be disoriented as to time, place and 

situation. He had a wound above his right eyebrow. There was no neurologic 

assessment noted. Plaintiff was given a low bunk pass. 

14. On or about July 5, 2014, Plaintiff had a third seizure. 

15. On or about July 9, 2014, Plaintiff had a Cataract resection and 

implantation of Intra-ocular lens into the right eye. Plaintiff’s recovery was 

ongoing at the time of the fall discussed below on June 10, 2015.

16. On or about December 24, 2014, Plaintiff received another low bunk 

pass. 

17. On or about January 25, 2015, Plaintiff had a fourth seizure.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 47
5

18. On June 10, 2015, while he was an inmate within Defendant DOC at 

LCI, Plaintiff was assigned an upper bunk, despite having a lower bunk pass and 

its knowledge of Plaintiff’s need for a low bunk pass due to his seizures. DOC has 

stated multiple times in records pertaining to Plaintiff that it does not have to honor 

a bunk pass written by medical employees and that the bunk pass certificate from a 

medical provider, Corizon in this case, is only a recommendation, not mandatory. 

Alternatively, Corizon was responsible for preparing and submitting to DOC bunk 

passes for inmates like Plaintiff and may not have reissued a low bunk pass that 

would have covered June 10, 2015, despite Plaintiff’s request for a low bunk pass 

and Corizon’s knowledge of his need for same.

19. On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff had a fifth seizure and fell from his upper

bunk, hitting a footlocker that was partially open before landing on the concrete

floor. In the fall, Plaintiff suffered facial lacerations, facial trauma, a severe open 

head wound, head and brain trauma, an orbital fracture of the right eye, almost 

certainly a concussion, and a sprained or broken ankle.

20. Plaintiff would not have sustained injuries had Defendants, DOC and 

Corizon, accommodated his disabilities in the first instance, including his request

for a lower bunk, due to his history of seizures.

21. After the June 10, 2015 seizure, fall and severe injuries, Plaintiff was 

treated in the LCI infirmary by CORIZON staff, then transported to Calhoun 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 47
6

Liberty Hospital, and shortly thereafter was placed in an ambulance to be 

transported again to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (“TMH”), where he remained 

for approximately two days.

22. When Plaintiff was returned to Lake Butler RMC from TMH, 

shockingly, he was once again assigned to an upper bunk, such assignment despite 

his history of seizures, and despite his recent fall and injuries.

23. On or about July 2, 2015, Plaintiff had a sixth seizure.

24. On or about July 4, 2015, Plaintiff had a seventh seizure.

25. On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff underwent surgery at Lake Butler RMC for 

his orbital fracture sustained on June 10, 2015. Plaintiff was determined to be blind 

in his right eye following this procedure.

26. On or about July 20, 2015 Plaintiff wrote an informal grievance 

stating that he had a low bunk pass but had been moved from a low bunk to an 

upper bunk. Plaintiff expressed concern given his recent seizure and injury.

27. On or about July 23, 2015, Plaintiff wrote an informal grievance 

asking why he was not in a low bunk in spite of his seizure history.

28. On or about July 28, 2015, DOC employee J. Moore, 

Grievance/ADA Coordinator at RMC, responded to Plaintiff stating “remember a 

pass is just a recommendation. Security can move you when they want too [sic].”

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 47
7

29. On or about July 29, 2015, J. Moore stated that his pass was 

expiring the next day and told him a low bunk pass from medical is a 

“recommendation.” 

30. On or about August 3, 2015, J Moore responded that even though 

Plaintiff had a medical low bunk pass, it was only considered as a 

“recommendation.” Moore further wrote “Security does not have to put you in a 

low bunk if there is not one.” 

31. On or about September 8, 2015, inexplicably, Plaintiff was moved

back to LCI into a high bunk. 

32. On or about September 9. 2015 Plaintiff had an eighth seizure.

33. After these seizures; he was not offered any medical diagnosis, tests 

or medication in connection with these additional seizures, and again shockingly, 

he was yet again denied a lower bunk.

34. After Plaintiff’s return to LCI he repeatedly requested a lower bunk

because of his seizure condition, but Defendant failed to accommodate his 

condition and honor his requests.

35. Further, in connection with injuries sustained in his earlier fall,

described above, Plaintiff was denied any follow-up care after having stitches other 

than the care he received at Lake Butler RMC.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 47
8

36. Plaintiff did not receive any tests for concussion or to determine the 

cause of his seizures.

37. The medication prescribed to Plaintiff for the seizures, Depakote, did 

not reduce the frequency of his seizures.

38. Plaintiff also did not receive any blood tests, which tests are standard 

safety requirement for patients prescribed Depakote.

39. On or about October 26, 2015, Plaintiff had a ninth seizure.

40. On or about October 28, 2015, Plaintiff had a tenth seizure.

41. On or about December 17, 2015, Plaintiff had an eleventh seizure.

42. On or about February 17, 2016, Plaintiff had a twelfth seizure.

43. On or about March 18, 2016, Plaintiff had a thirteenth and fourteenth 

seizure. 

44. On or about April 16, 2016, Plaintiff had a fifteenth seizure. By this 

time, Defendant Centurion was contracting with Defendant DOC as there was an 

overlap of services between Corizon and Centurion for medical care in DOC 

facilities in which Plaintiff was housed from April through May 31, 2016. 

45. On or about April 17, 2016, Plaintiff had a sixteenth seizure.

46. On or about June 4, 2016, Plaintiff had a seventeenth seizure. 

47. On or about June 5, 2016, Plaintiff had an eighteenth seizure.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 47
9

48. On or about August 8, 2016, Plaintiff had his nineteenth and 

twentieth seizure. 

49. On or about October 2, 2016, Plaintiff had a twenty-first seizure.

50. On or about November 22, 2016, Plaintiff had his twenty-second 

seizure. 

51. On or about December 9, 2016, Plaintiff was noted to be having 

seizures every one or two minutes.

52. On or about February 25, 2017, Plaintiff had his twenty-third 

seizure. Still no tests were conducted to determine the proper medication for 

Plaintiff that would not make him ill nor the cause of his seizures. 

53. In March 2017, Plaintiff was finally provided a lower bunk at LCI.

54. In mid-June 2017, Plaintiff began experiencing pain in his left arm

and shoulder, which pain eventually extended all the way down the left side of his 

body to his hip.

55. This pain was of such a severity that Plaintiff was not able to sleep or 

lay on that side.

56. When Plaintiff went to Defendant Centurion’s medical station to 

report this pain, he was told nothing was wrong, provided ibuprofen, and sent back 

to his dorm. Defendant did not further test Plaintiff and delayed in obtaining 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 47
10

and/or providing proper medical attention to Plaintiff in light of his severe 

symptoms.

57. As the ibuprofen did not alleviate Plaintiff’s condition, he returned to 

Defendant Centurion’s medical location a second time. On this second occasion, 

Defendant’s medical staff decided to keep him overnight.

58. Around this time, in mid to late-June 2017, Plaintiff began to 

experience increased pain in the lower abdomen, and observed his urine to be of an 

abnormally dark color. Upon bringing those conditions to the attention of 

Defendant Centurion’s medical staff, Plaintiff was told that his brown urine 

evidenced blood coming from his kidneys. 

59. On June 24, 2017, Plaintiff was taken to TMH and remained in 

TMH’s intensive care unit (“ICU”). Tests were thereafter conducted, and it was 

ultimately determined that Plaintiff had acute kidney failure, and that he was 

dehydrated.

60. He was released from TMH during the first week of July 2017. After 

his release from TMH and return to LCI, he spent two days in the medical unit.

61. Thereafter, in approximately October 2017, Plaintiff was confined by 

Defendant DOC to a high-security dorm at LCI. Plaintiff had never before been 

confined in a high-security dorm, and did not understand the reason for such 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 10 of 47
11

change. Defendant DOC refused to provide Plaintiff with a reason when he 

requested one.

62. In that circumstance, Plaintiff was placed in high security 

confinement at LCI for approximately two weeks based on contrived allegations 

relating to an incident with which Plaintiff had no involvement whatsoever.

63. Furthermore, Plaintiff was unjustly “sentenced” by Defendant

DOC—with no due process--to an extra 30-35 days of incarceration based on its 

false accusations against him relating to this incident.

64. Plaintiff was then transferred to another location of Defendant DOC 

where he was also kept in confinement; it was not until his subsequent transfer to 

Blackwater Correctional Institute in November 2017 that Plaintiff was returned to 

the general prisoner population.

65. From the time he was first placed in confinement at LCI in or around 

October, 2017 through the time he was transferred and released back to normal 

status in November 2017, he was not able to speak with his family members or any 

other outsiders, which only caused increased suffering for him and for his family.

66. When transferred to BCI, Plaintiff finally received further medical 

care regarding his loss of vision due to the June 2015 event described above.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 11 of 47
12

67. Specifically, Plaintiff was x-rayed by an optometrist or 

ophthalmologist at BCI, who observed blood behind his left eye, i.e., behind the 

eye that Plaintiff is not blind in.

68. This optometrist or ophthalmologist also indicated that Plaintiff 

might have a chance of regaining vision in his blind eye if he undergoes certain 

treatment. Plaintiff has still not had that treatment.

69. Thus, since approximately June 2015, Plaintiff has suffered 

permanent and ongoing physical injury as well as physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, all as a result of Defendants’ refusal to accommodate his disability and 

refusal to provide medical care.

70. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent his interests in this 

cause and is obligated to pay a fee for these services. Defendants should be made 

to pay said fee, along with expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, under 

applicable law.

COUNT I-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT HIRING

(against DEFENDANT DOC)

71. Paragraphs 1-69 above are realleged and incorporated.

72. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent hiring. 

73. The actions of Defendant complained of in this count were taken in 

the performance of “operational” functions, i.e., functions that are not necessary to 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 12 of 47
13

or inherent in policymaking or planning, and which merely reflect secondary 

decisions as to how existing policies or plans will be implemented.

74. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included duties to 

independently vet and investigate prior to hire its employees/agents involved in 

supervision of detainees and in the determination of their need for medical care,

and/or involved in the supervision of other officers who supervise detainees and 

determined their medical needs, and to confirm their fitness for employment in 

their roles, and in the context of unfitness not to hire or contract with such 

employees/agents. Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this duty of care 

arose.

75. On information and belief, prior to their employment, Defendant 

breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by negligently failing to independently vet and 

investigate its employees/agents involved in inmate supervision and medical care 

determination, and/or by negligently failing to independently vet its 

employees/agents involved in the supervision of other officers who supervise 

inmates and determine medical care and needs for bunk assignments based on the 

employee’s physical and/or mental health needs, and in negligently failing to 

confirm their fitness for employment in such roles. Had Defendant conducted 

independent investigations prior to such hirings, it would have known that certain 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 13 of 47
14

of its employees/ agents, on information and belief, had committed similar acts in 

the past, or were otherwise unfit to be hired.

76. Defendant had a legal duty and responsibility to learn the pertinent 

facts concerning these candidates’ character and fitness for duty, and its obtaining 

the necessary information would not have created undue hardship on it.

77. Defendant breached its duty to hire employees who were fit for the 

duties they performed.

78. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are continuing at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. 

COUNT II-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT RETENTION

(against Defendant DOC)

79. Paragraphs 1-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

80. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent retention. 

81. The actions of Defendant complained of in this count were taken in 

the performance of “operational” functions, i.e., functions that are not necessary to 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 14 of 47
15

or inherent in policymaking or planning, and which merely reflect secondary 

decisions as to how existing policies or plans will be implemented.

82. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty to 

monitor the actions, inactions, and overall performance of its employees/agents 

subsequent to hire, to make itself aware of such employees’/ agents’ fitness or 

unfitness to act properly under the law, without violating the rights of persons such 

as Plaintiff, and in the context of unfitness take remedial actions, including but not 

limited to discharge.

83. Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and these duties of care 

arose.

84. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently failing to monitor the actions, inactions, and overall 

performance of its employees/agents, by its negligent failure to make itself aware 

of the fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to act properly under the law, 

without violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, and/or by its negligent 

failure to take remedial actions, including but not limited to discharge, when it was 

aware or should have been aware of such employees’/agents’ unfitness, and such 

employees and/or agents then acted in connection with Plaintiff.

85. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 15 of 47
16

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under 

this count.

COUNT III-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT TRAINING

(against Defendant DOC)

86. Paragraphs 1-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

87. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent training. 

88. The actions of Defendant complained of in this count were taken in 

the performance of “operational” functions, i.e., functions that are not necessary to 

or inherent in policymaking or planning, and which merely reflect secondary 

decisions as to how existing policies or plans will be implemented.

89. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty to 

properly train its employees/agents, and specifically to implement and operate 

training programs so as to train employees/agents in connection with the 

supervision of detainees and with the determination of detainees’ needs for medical 

care and needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical and/or 

mental health needs, and/or with the supervision of other officers who in turn 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 16 of 47
17

supervise detainees and determine detainee medical care needs. Plaintiff was in a 

foreseeable zone of risk, and this duty of care arose.

90. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently implementing or operating its training programs with 

regard to its employees/agents involved in detainee supervision and medical care 

determination, and/or involved in the supervision of other officers who in turn 

supervise detainees and determine medical care, and/or by delivering no training at 

all to such employees/agents, who then acted in connection with Plaintiff.

91. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are continuing at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. 

COUNT IV-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

(Against Defendant DOC)

92. Paragraphs 1-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

93. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent supervision. 

94. The actions of Defendant complained of in this count were taken in 

the performance of “operational” functions, i.e., functions that are not necessary to 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 17 of 47
18

or inherent in policymaking or planning, and which merely reflect secondary 

decisions as to how existing policies or plans will be implemented.

95. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty to 

properly supervise its employees/agents, and specifically to observe and monitor 

the actions, inactions, and overall performance of its employees/agents in 

functioning in connection with detainee supervision and medical care 

determination and/or in connection with the supervision of other employees who 

supervise detainees and determine medical care, to make themselves aware of their 

employees’/agents’ professional difficulties and the fitness or unfitness of such 

employees/agents to act properly under the law, without violating the rights of 

persons such as Plaintiff, and in the context of difficulties or unfitness to take 

remedial actions, including but not limited to investigation, instruction, and 

reassignment. Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this duty of care 

arose.

96. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently failing to monitor the actions, inactions, and overall 

performance of its employees/agents in functioning in connection with detainee 

supervision and medical care provision, and/or functioning in connection with the 

supervision of other employees who supervise detainees and determine medical 

care and needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical and/or 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 18 of 47
19

mental health needs, by its negligent failure to make itself aware of the difficulties 

and fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to act properly under the law, 

without violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, and/or by its negligent 

failure to take remedial actions, including but not limited to investigation, 

instruction, and reassignment, when it was aware or should have been aware of 

such employees’/ agents’ difficulties and unfitness, and such employees and agents 

then acted in connection with Plaintiff.

97. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in past, are occurring at present and will certainly occur in 

the future.

COUNT V-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant DOC)

98. Paragraphs 1-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

99. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligence, and is based 

on duties that arose during Plaintiff’s detention, neglect thereof, and resulting 

injuries. This count is pled in the alternative and for purposes of this count, at all 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 19 of 47
20

pertinent times, some or all of Defendant’s employees were acting within the scope 

of their employment.

100. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff was within a 

zone of risk related to his contact with its agents/employees.

101. Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff due to Plaintiff being 

sufficiently restrained of his liberty and freedom to leave, and also based on 

Plaintiff’s medical conditions in combination with his being in the custody of 

Defendant.

102. Once Plaintiff was retrained of his liberty, and because he was forced 

to rely on the services provided by Defendant and decisions made about his bunk 

assignments, including his physical protection and also including determinations as 

to entitlement to medical services followed by the provision or failure of provision 

of such medical services, he was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and a duty of care 

arose. Alternatively, because of the nature of the restraint and the custodial 

relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and also based on Plaintiff’s medical 

conditions, Defendant had a special relationship with him and, consequently, a 

duty of care was attendant thereto.

103. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff and/or its duties to 

ensure that Plaintiff was properly assigned to a low bunk in light of his medical 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 20 of 47
21

condition and to ensure that Plaintiff received medical care, particularly in light of 

the circumstances here, specifically including Plaintiff’s medical condition.

104. The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and also for the 

exacerbation of Plaintiff’s injuries, was Defendant’s negligence set forth above, 

and therefore such negligence was the legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

105. The common law negligence subject of this count is ordinary 

negligence in the performance or failure of performance of custodial duties 

devolving upon Defendant, and not negligence or vicarious liability for negligence 

in the provision of professional medical services. Therefore, the pertinent standard 

of care is that which applies to ordinary actions of non-medical professionals, 

rather than that which applies to medical professionals.

106. No medical or professional expertise was required on the part of 

Defendant’s employees in order to be aware of Plaintiff’s severe medical 

conditions, and his need for medical access and services. Thus, Defendant’s 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s conditions and needs was obtained, in whole or in part, 

through non-medical employees/agents.

107. The actions of Defendant, and specifically those actions complained 

of herein, were taken in the performance of “operational” functions, i.e., functions 

that were not necessary to or inherent in policymaking or planning, that merely 

reflected secondary decisions as to how policies or plans were to be implemented.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 21 of 47
22

108. As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and 

omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained economic damages, including lost 

income, sustained emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of 

self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, and is therefore entitled to compensatory 

damages. These damages occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are 

likely to continue into the future. 

COUNT VI-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT TRAINING

(Against Defendant CORIZON)

109. Paragraphs 1-45, 69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

110. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent training. 

111. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty

to properly train its employees/agents, and specifically to implement and operate 

training programs so as to train employees/agents in connection with the 

supervision of detainees and with the determination of detainees’ needs for medical 

care, needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical and/or mental 

health needs and/or with the supervision of other officers who in turn supervise 

detainees and determine detainee medical care needs and bunk assignments. 

Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this duty of care arose.

112. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently implementing or operating its training programs with 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 22 of 47
23

regard to its employees/agents involved in detainee supervision and medical care 

determination and regarding inmates’ needs for bunk assignments based on the 

employee’s physical and/or mental health needs, and/or involved in the supervision 

of other officers who in turn supervise detainees and determine medical care, 

and/or by delivering no training at all to such employees/agents, who then acted in 

connection with Plaintiff.

113. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are continuing at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under 

this count.

COUNT VII-COMMON LAW SUPERVISION

(Against Defendant CORIZON)

114. Paragraphs 1-45, 69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

115. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent supervision. 

116. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty to 

properly supervise its employees/agents, and specifically to observe and monitor 

the actions, inactions, and overall performance of its employees/agents in 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 23 of 47
24

functioning in connection with detainee supervision and medical care 

determination and needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical 

and/or mental health needs and/or in connection with the supervision of other 

employees who supervise detainees and determine medical care, to make 

themselves aware of their employees’/agents’ professional difficulties and the 

fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to act properly under the law, without 

violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, and in the context of difficulties or 

unfitness to take remedial actions, including but not limited to investigation, 

instruction, and reassignment. Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this

duty of care arose.

117. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently failing to monitor the actions, inactions, and overall 

performance of its employees/agents in functioning in connection with detainee 

supervision, assignments of bunks to disabled inmates, and medical care provision, 

and/or functioning in connection with the supervision of other employees who 

supervise detainees and determine medical care, by its negligent failure to make 

itself aware of the difficulties and fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to 

act properly under the law, without violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, 

and/or by its negligent failure to take remedial actions, including but not limited to 

investigation, instruction, and reassignment, when it was aware or should have 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 24 of 47
25

been aware of such employees’/ agents’ difficulties and unfitness, and such 

employees and agents then acted in connection with Plaintiff.

118. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled to equitable/ injunctive relief 

under this count.

COUNT VIII-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

(against Defendant Corizon)

119. Paragraphs 1-45, 69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

120. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligence, and is based 

on duties that arose during Plaintiff’s detention, neglect thereof, and resulting 

injuries. 

121. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff was within a 

zone of risk related to his contact with its agents/employees.

122. Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff due to Plaintiff being 

sufficiently restrained of his liberty and freedom to leave, and also based on 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 25 of 47
26

Plaintiff’s medical conditions in combination with his being in the custody of 

Defendant.

123. Once Plaintiff was retrained of his liberty, and because he was forced 

to rely on the services provided by Defendant, including determinations as to 

entitlement to medical services followed by the provision or failure of provision of 

such medical services and the assignments of bunks, he was in a foreseeable zone 

of risk, and a duty of care arose. Alternatively, because of the nature of the 

restraint and the custodial relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and also 

based on Plaintiff’s medical conditions, Defendant had a special relationship with 

him and, consequently, a duty of care was attendant thereto.

124. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff and/or its duties to 

ensure that Plaintiff received a problem bunk assignment in light of his medical 

needs and to ensure that Plaintiff received medical care, particularly in light of the 

circumstances here, specifically including Plaintiff’s medical condition.

125. The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and also for the 

exacerbation of Plaintiff’s injuries, was Defendant’s negligence set forth above, 

and therefore such negligence was the legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

126. The common law negligence subject of this count is ordinary 

negligence in the performance or failure of performance of duties devolving upon 

Defendant, and not negligence or vicarious liability for negligence in the provision 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 26 of 47
27

of professional medical services. Therefore, the pertinent standard of care is that 

which applies to ordinary actions of non-medical professionals, rather than that 

which applies to medical professionals.

127. No medical or professional expertise was required on the part of 

Defendant’s employees in order to be aware of Plaintiff’s severe medical 

conditions, and his need for medical access and services. Thus, Defendant’s 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s conditions and needs was obtained, in whole or in part, 

through non-medical employees/agents.

128. As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and 

omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained economic damages, including lost 

income, sustained emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of 

self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, and is therefore entitled to compensatory 

damages. These damages occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are 

likely to continue into the future. 

COUNT IX-HANDICAP/DISABILITY/PERCEIVED

DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION

(against Defendant DOC)

129. Paragraphs 1-70 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

130. This count sets forth a claim for discrimination based on Plaintiff’s 

handicap, disability, and/or perceived disability, brought under 42 U.S.C. §12131, 

et seq. (ADA-Title II), under 28 C.F.R. §39.130, under 28 C.F.R. §35.130, and 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 27 of 47
28

under 29 U.S.C. §704 (the Rehabilitation Act). This count is pled in the alternative, 

and for purposes of this count, Defendant’s employees and agents were acting 

within the course and scope of their employment/agency with Defendant.

131. The above-referenced disability anti-discrimination laws impose an 

affirmative duty on public entities to create policies or procedures to prevent 

discrimination based on disability.

132. Plaintiff was disabled as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 42 U.S.C. 

§12131, and 28 C.F.R. §35.108, as he suffered a physical impairment that 

substantially limited one or more of his major life activities.

133. Defendant is a public entity as defined by Title II of the ADA.

134. Defendant’s prisons, in which Plaintiff was incarcerated, are facilities 

and their operation comprise a program of service for purposes of Title II of the 

ADA.

135. Plaintiff was an individual qualified to participate in or receive the 

benefit of Defendant’s services, programs, or activities.

136. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations including without limitation the consistent assignment 

to a lower bunk, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 28 of 47
29

137. There was no legitimate reason for the mistreatment of Plaintiff.

138. Plaintiff was abused because of his disabilities by Defendant’s agents 

and employees. Plaintiff was abused when he was assigned to an upper bunk, more 

specifically when he was denied a lower bunk pass despite his history of seizures,

which put him at high risk of serious injury if denied a lower bunk pass, and was 

further abused when he was denied medical treatment for injuries he suffered due 

to his disability, which was known to Defendant, and was then denied 

accommodations to prevent further injuries that could result due to his disabilities. 

139. Such abuse and denial of medical treatment and accommodations by 

Defendant and its agents and employees was in spite of Plaintiff’s known 

disabilities. Such abuse constituted discrimination against individuals based on 

their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and of Title II of the ADA.

140. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability. 

141. Defendant knew or should have known of these conditions. The 

adverse treatment of Plaintiff, together with the facts set forth above, were brought 

to the attention of Defendant and Defendant perpetuated this treatment by 

condoning and/or ratifying the actions and inactions affecting Plaintiff.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 29 of 47
30

142. Defendant harbored ill-motives and intent to cause disparate and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff.

143. Defendant is responsible for the violations of Plaintiff's rights as set 

forth herein because it exercised control over the adverse treatment of Plaintiff. In 

the alternative, Defendant failed to properly supervise its employees, thereby 

causing foreseeable violations of Plaintiff’s rights as set forth herein.

144. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described in 

part above, Plaintiff has sustained damages including but not limited to mental, 

nervous, and emotional injury. Plaintiff has incurred additional damages including 

pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and 

other damages. These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present 

and will likely continue into the future. 

COUNT X

HANDICAP/DISABILITY/PERCEIVED

DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION

(against Defendant CORIZON)

145. Paragraphs 1-45, 69, 70 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

146. This count sets forth a claim for discrimination based on Plaintiff’s 

handicap, disability, and/or perceived disability, brought under 42 U.S.C. §12131, 

et seq. (ADA-Title II), under 28 C.F.R. §39.130, under 28 C.F.R. §35.130, and 

under 29 U.S.C. §704 (the Rehabilitation Act). This count is pled in the alternative, 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 30 of 47
31

and for purposes of this count, Defendant’s employees and agents were acting 

within the course and scope of their employment/agency with Defendant.

147. The above-referenced disability anti-discrimination laws impose an 

affirmative duty on entities such as Defendant to create policies or procedures to 

prevent discrimination based on disability and/or to follow the policies of a public 

entity in this regard.

148. Plaintiff was disabled as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 42 U.S.C. 

§12131, and 28 C.F.R. §35.108, as he suffered a physical impairment that 

substantially limited one or more of his major life activities.

149. Defendant is subject to Title II of the ADA.

150. Defendant conducts its business in prisons, in which Plaintiff was 

incarcerated, which are facilities and their operation comprise a program of service 

for purposes of Title II of the ADA.

151. Plaintiff was an individual qualified to participate in or receive the 

benefit of Defendant’s services, programs, or activities.

152. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability.

153. There was no legitimate reason for the mistreatment of Plaintiff.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 31 of 47
32

154. Plaintiff was abused because of his disabilities by Defendant’s agents 

and employees. Plaintiff was abused when he was assigned to an upper bunk, more 

specifically when he was denied a lower bunk pass despite his history of seizures,

which put him at high risk of serious injury if denied a lower bunk pass, and was 

further abused when he was denied medical treatment for injuries he suffered due 

to his disability, which was known to Defendant, and was then denied 

accommodations to prevent further injuries that could result due to his disabilities. 

155. Such abuse and denial of medical treatment and accommodations by 

Defendant and its agents and employees was in spite of Plaintiff’s known 

disabilities. Such abuse constituted discrimination against individuals based on

their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and of Title II of the ADA.

156. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability. 

157. Defendant knew or should have known of these conditions. The 

adverse treatment of Plaintiff, together with the facts set forth above, were brought 

to the attention of Defendant and Defendant perpetuated this treatment by 

condoning and/or ratifying the actions and inactions affecting Plaintiff.

158. Defendant harbored ill-motives and intent to cause disparate and 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 32 of 47
33

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff.

159. Defendant is responsible for the violations of Plaintiff's rights as set 

forth herein because it exercised control over the adverse treatment of Plaintiff. In 

the alternative, Defendant failed to properly supervise its employees, thereby 

causing foreseeable violations of Plaintiff’s rights as set forth herein.

160. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described in 

part above, Plaintiff has sustained damages including but not limited to mental, 

nervous, and emotional injury. Plaintiff has incurred additional damages including 

pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and 

other damages. These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present 

and will likely continue into the future. 

COUNT XI

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDSCORIZON

161. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-45, 69, 70 as if fully set forth herein. 

162. At all times material, Defendant Corizon had a duty under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America to 

provide adequate medical care to inmates under Defendant’s control. Defendant is 

a person under the laws applicable to this action. Under these Amendment, 

Defendant had a duty not to be deliberately indifferent to the known serious 

medical needs of inmates in the custody of DOC. 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 33 of 47
34

163. While incarcerated within a DOC facility, Plaintiff suffered from a 

serious medical need which required medical attention. 

164. Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 

165. Defendant Corizon was aware of Plaintiff’s injuries and medical 

needs. 

166. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was at substantial risk of serious

harm and continued pain if he did not receive immediate treatment. 

167. Plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and condition was known or knowable to 

Defendant all times material, as documented in the Plaintiff’s records. Despite its

actual or imputed knowledge of the serious risk to Plaintiff’s health, the Defendant 

intentionally or through deliberate indifference, failed or refused to provide 

Plaintiff with access to the specialized medical care either ordered by physicians or 

requested by Plaintiff. 

168. Had Defendant ensured that Plaintiff was properly treated in a timely 

manner, Plaintiff’s pain and injuries would have been treated. 

169. Defendant had a custom and practice of the denial of medical care and 

treatment of persons incarcerated in DOC facilities. They were either deliberately 

indifferent in the failure to adequately train their employees in the treatment of 

persons incarcerated in DOC facilities, was the final policy maker with respect to 

the care and treatment that inmates received while incarcerated and/or had a 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 34 of 47
35

custom and practice of denying inmates medical care and treatment. This 

unconstitutional policy was the cause of the injury suffered by Plaintiff. 

170. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s known serious medical needs, Plaintiff has 

suffered the injuries described in this complaint, including bodily injuries and 

resulting pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, 

expenses of medical and nursing care and treatment, and other losses, including the 

aggravation of pre-existing conditions. These injuries and losses are permanent 

and continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer such losses in the future. Plaintiff is 

entitled to punitive damages.

COUNT XII

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDSCENTURION

171. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-18,46-70 as if fully set forth herein. 

172. At all times material, Defendant Corizon had a duty under the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America to 

provide adequate medical care to inmates under Defendant’s control. Defendant is 

a person under the laws applicable to this action. Under these Amendment, 

Defendant had a duty not to be deliberately indifferent to the known serious 

medical needs of inmates in the custody of DOC. 

173. While incarcerated within a DOC facility, Plaintiff suffered from a 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 35 of 47
36

serious medical need which required medical attention. 

174. Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 

175. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s injuries and medical needs. 

176. Defendant was aware that Plaintiff was at substantial risk of serious

harm and continued pain if he did not receive immediate treatment. 

177. Plaintiff’s medical diagnosis and condition was known or knowable to 

Defendant all times material, as documented in the Plaintiff’s records. Despite its

actual or imputed knowledge of the serious risk to Plaintiff’s health, the Defendant 

intentionally or through deliberate indifference, failed or refused to provide 

Plaintiff with access to the specialized medical care either ordered by physicians or 

requested by Plaintiff. 

178. Had Defendant ensured that Plaintiff was properly treated in a timely 

manner, Plaintiff’s pain and injuries would have been treated. 

179. Defendant had a custom and practice of the denial of medical care and 

treatment of persons incarcerated in DOC facilities. They were either deliberately 

indifferent in the failure to adequately train their employees in the treatment of 

persons incarcerated in DOC facilities, was the final policy maker with respect to 

the care and treatment that inmates received while incarcerated and/or had a 

custom and practice of denying inmates medical care and treatment. This 

unconstitutional policy was the cause of the injury suffered by Plaintiff. 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 36 of 47
37

180. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant’s 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s known serious medical needs, Plaintiff has 

suffered the injuries described in this complaint, including bodily injuries and 

resulting pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, 

expenses of medical and nursing care and treatment, and other losses, including the 

aggravation of pre-existing conditions. These injuries and losses are permanent 

and continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer such losses in the future. Plaintiff is 

entitled to punitive damages.

COUNT XIII-COMMON LAW SUPERVISION

(Against Defendant CENTURION)

181. Paragraphs 1-18, 46-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

182. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent supervision. 

183. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty to 

properly supervise its employees/agents, and specifically to observe and monitor 

the actions, inactions, and overall performance of its employees/agents in 

functioning in connection with detainee supervision and medical care 

determination and needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical 

and/or mental health needs and/or in connection with the supervision of other 

employees who supervise detainees and determine medical care, to make 

themselves aware of their employees’/agents’ professional difficulties and the 

fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to act properly under the law, without 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 37 of 47
38

violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, and in the context of difficulties or 

unfitness to take remedial actions, including but not limited to investigation, 

instruction, and reassignment. Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this

duty of care arose.

184. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently failing to monitor the actions, inactions, and overall 

performance of its employees/agents in functioning in connection with detainee 

supervision, assignments of bunks to disabled inmates, and medical care provision, 

and/or functioning in connection with the supervision of other employees who 

supervise detainees and determine medical care, by its negligent failure to make 

itself aware of the difficulties and fitness or unfitness of such employees/agents to 

act properly under the law, without violating the rights of persons such as Plaintiff, 

and/or by its negligent failure to take remedial actions, including but not limited to 

investigation, instruction, and reassignment, when it was aware or should have 

been aware of such employees’/ agents’ difficulties and unfitness, and such 

employees and agents then acted in connection with Plaintiff.

185. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 38 of 47
39

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled to equitable/ injunctive relief 

under this count.

COUNT XIV-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

(against Defendant Centurion)

186. Paragraphs 1-18, 46-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

187. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligence, and is based 

on duties that arose during Plaintiff’s detention, neglect thereof, and resulting 

injuries. 

188. Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff was within a 

zone of risk related to his contact with its agents/employees.

189. Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff due to Plaintiff being 

sufficiently restrained of his liberty and freedom to leave, and also based on 

Plaintiff’s medical conditions in combination with his being in the custody of 

Defendant.

190. Once Plaintiff was retrained of his liberty, and because he was forced 

to rely on the services provided by Defendant, including determinations as to 

entitlement to medical services followed by the provision or failure of provision of 

such medical services and the assignments of bunks, he was in a foreseeable zone 

of risk, and a duty of care arose. Alternatively, because of the nature of the 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 39 of 47
40

restraint and the custodial relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, and also 

based on Plaintiff’s medical conditions, Defendant had a special relationship with 

him and, consequently, a duty of care was attendant thereto.

191. Defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff and/or its duties to 

ensure that Plaintiff was protected from other inmates and to ensure that Plaintiff 

received medical care, particularly in light of the circumstances here, specifically 

including Plaintiff’s medical condition.

192. The proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and also for the 

exacerbation of Plaintiff’s injuries, was Defendant’s negligence set forth above, 

and therefore such negligence was the legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

193. The common law negligence subject of this count is ordinary 

negligence in the performance or failure of performance of duties devolving upon 

Defendant, and not negligence or vicarious liability for negligence in the provision 

of professional medical services. Therefore, the pertinent standard of care is that 

which applies to ordinary actions of non-medical professionals, rather than that 

which applies to medical professionals.

194. No medical or professional expertise was required on the part of 

Defendant’s employees in order to be aware of Plaintiff’s severe medical 

conditions, and his need for medical access and services. Thus, Defendant’s 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 40 of 47
41

knowledge of Plaintiff’s conditions and needs was obtained, in whole or in part, 

through non-medical employees/agents.

195. As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and 

omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff sustained economic damages, including lost 

income, sustained emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, insult, indignity, loss of 

self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, and is therefore entitled to compensatory 

damages. These damages occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and are 

likely to continue into the future. 

COUNT VX-COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT TRAINING

(Against Defendant CENTURION)

196. Paragraphs 1-18, 46-69 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

197. This count sets forth a claim for common law negligent training. 

198. The duties of care owed by Defendant to Plaintiff included the duty

to properly train its employees/agents, and specifically to implement and operate 

training programs so as to train employees/agents in connection with the 

supervision of detainees and with the determination of detainees’ needs for medical 

care, needs for bunk assignments based on the employee’s physical and/or mental 

health needs and/or with the supervision of other officers who in turn supervise 

detainees and determine detainee medical care needs and bunk assignments. 

Plaintiff was in a foreseeable zone of risk, and this duty of care arose.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 41 of 47
42

199. On information and belief, Defendant breached its duty of care to 

Plaintiff by negligently implementing or operating its training programs with 

regard to its employees/agents involved in detainee supervision and medical care 

determination and regarding inmates’ needs for bunk assignments based on the 

employee’s physical and/or mental health needs, and/or involved in the supervision 

of other officers who in turn supervise detainees and determine medical care, 

and/or by delivering no training at all to such employees/agents, who then acted in 

connection with Plaintiff.

200. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts and omissions of 

Defendant, set forth in part above, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages 

include physical pain, mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of 

capacity for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, 

loss of employment opportunities, lost wages, and loss of other emoluments. These 

damages have occurred in the past, are continuing at present, and are likely to 

continue into the future. Plaintiff is also entitled to equitable/injunctive relief under 

this count.

COUNT XVI

HANDICAP/DISABILITY/PERCEIVED

DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION

(against Defendant CENTURION)

201. Paragraphs 1-18, 46-70 above are re-alleged and incorporated.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 42 of 47
43

202. This count sets forth a claim for discrimination based on Plaintiff’s 

handicap, disability, and/or perceived disability, brought under 42 U.S.C. §12131, 

et seq. (ADA-Title II), under 28 C.F.R. §39.130, under 28 C.F.R. §35.130, and 

under 29 U.S.C. §704 (the Rehabilitation Act). This count is pled in the alternative, 

and for purposes of this count, Defendant’s employees and agents were acting 

within the course and scope of their employment/agency with Defendant.

203. The above-referenced disability anti-discrimination laws impose an 

affirmative duty on entities such as Defendant to create policies or procedures to 

prevent discrimination based on disability and/or to follow the policies of a public 

entity in this regard.

204. Plaintiff was disabled as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 42 U.S.C. 

§12131, and 28 C.F.R. §35.108, as he suffered a physical impairment that 

substantially limited one or more of his major life activities.

205. Defendant is subject to Title II of the ADA.

206. Defendant conducts its business in prisons, in which Plaintiff was 

incarcerated, which are facilities and their operation comprise a program of service 

for purposes of Title II of the ADA.

207. Plaintiff was an individual qualified to participate in or receive the 

benefit of Defendant’s services, programs, or activities.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 43 of 47
44

208. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability.

209. There was no legitimate reason for the mistreatment of Plaintiff.

210. Plaintiff was abused because of his disabilities by Defendant’s agents 

and employees. Plaintiff was abused when he was assigned to an upper bunk, more 

specifically when he was denied a lower bunk pass despite his history of seizures,

which put him at high risk of serious injury if denied a lower bunk pass, and was 

further abused when he was denied medical treatment for injuries he suffered due 

to his disability, which was known to Defendant, and was then denied 

accommodations to prevent further injuries that could result due to his disabilities. 

211. Such abuse and denial of medical treatment and accommodations by 

Defendant and its agents and employees was in spite of Plaintiff’s known 

disabilities. Such abuse constituted discrimination against individuals based on

their disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and of Title II of the ADA.

212. Defendant, through its agents and employees, because of Plaintiff's 

handicap/disability or of its perception of Plaintiff as disabled, refused and/or 

challenged accommodations, and otherwise harassed him on the basis of his

disability/perceived disability. 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 44 of 47
45

213. Defendant knew or should have known of these conditions. The 

adverse treatment of Plaintiff, together with the facts set forth above, were brought 

to the attention of Defendant and Defendant perpetuated this treatment by 

condoning and/or ratifying the actions and inactions affecting Plaintiff.

214. Defendant harbored ill-motives and intent to cause disparate and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff.

215. Defendant is responsible for the violations of Plaintiff's rights as set 

forth herein because it exercised control over the adverse treatment of Plaintiff. In 

the alternative, Defendant failed to properly supervise its employees, thereby 

causing foreseeable violations of Plaintiff’s rights as set forth herein.

216. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions described in 

part above, Plaintiff has sustained damages including but not limited to mental, 

nervous, and emotional injury. Plaintiff has incurred additional damages including 

pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and 

other damages. These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present 

and will likely continue into the future. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

(a) that process issue and this court take jurisdiction over this 

cause; 

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 45 of 47
46

(b) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for 

Plaintiff granting equitable relief against Defendants under the 

applicable counts set forth above, mandating Defendants’

obedience to the laws enumerated herein, and providing other 

equitable relief to Plaintiff; 

(c) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for 

Plaintiff awarding all legally-available general and 

compensatory damages, including damages for economic loss,

to Plaintiff from Defendants for Defendants’ violations of law 

enumerated herein; 

(d) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for 

Plaintiff permanently enjoining Defendants from future 

violations of law enumerated herein; 

(e) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for 

Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney’s fees as allowed 

by law; 

(f) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for 

Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff interest where appropriate; and

(g) that this court grant such other and further relief as is just and 

proper under the circumstances.

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 46 of 47
47

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues herein that are so 

triable. 

Respectfully submitted:

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

Marie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685]

MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.

203 North Gadsden Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Telephone: (850) 383-4800

Facsimile: (850) 383-4801

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 

furnished to all counsel of record by CM/ECF this 23rd day of March, 2020.

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

Marie A. Mattox

Case 4:19-cv-00488-RH-MJF Document 28 Filed 03/23/20 Page 47 of 47