IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

J.P., 1

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-317

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

OFFICER JIMMY HIGHSMITH;

WARDEN T.A. JONES;

WARDEN CRAIG COIL;

SIS OFFICER RONALD PROFFITT;

OFFICER GEOFFREY BROWN;

OFFICER MANUEL PULIDO; and

NAKAMOTO GROUP, INC.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, J.P, by and through her attorneys, brings claims based upon the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to the legal standards set forth 

in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971), and based upon the Federal Tort Claims Act 

(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. and/or other applicable law.

1. J.P., while an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”), endured a brutal rape and sexually battery by Officer Jimmy Highsmith 

(“Highsmith”) and sustained damages as a proximate result.

 1 These initials, and all initialized references to inmate victims of sexual assault at FCI Tallahassee, are 

pseudonyms used to protect the subject’s identities for personal safety reasons. These persons have 

legitimate fears of retaliation from correctional officials and/or present or former inmates for making 

public allegations regarding correctional officers.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 39
2

2. J.P. brings this suit to recover for the violation of her constitutional rights 

and for the negligent acts of the BOP employees named herein, who failed in their duty 

to protect her from the known risk that Highsmith posed to her and to all inmates 

confined at FCI Tallahassee.

3. Defendant correctional employees working at FCI Tallahassee knew that 

Highsmith, as an individual, posed a threat to the safety of J.P. and all other inmates. 

4. Defendants Warden T.A. Jones (“Warden Jones” or “Jones”), Warden 

Craig Coil (“Warden Coil” or “Coil”), Special Investigative Services Officer Ronald 

Proffitt (“SIS Proffitt” or “Proffitt”), Officer Geoffrey Brown (“Officer Brown” or 

“Brown”) and Officer Manuel Pulido (“Officer Pulido” or “Pulido”) were also aware that 

Highsmith posed a significant risk of sexual assault and sexual abuse to the inmate 

population at FCI Tallahassee, including and especially J.P. 

5. As a federal inmate, J.P. was committed to the Government’s care, 

custody, and control and while in such custody federal law specifically requires the BOP

to "provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or 

convicted of offenses against the united states" and to "provide for the protection ... Of 

all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 

4042(a)(2)-(3). 

6. As a federal inmate, J.P.’s options for escaping sexual assault or for 

resisting the sexually abusive conduct of a guard were limited. J.P.- like all inmates at 

FCI Tallahassee – relied on employees to protect her from sexual abuse by guards and 

staff. 

7. Pursuant to a contract between defendants U.S.A. and Nakamoto Group, 

Inc. Nakamoto Group, Inc. was contractually obliged to provide Prison Rape 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 39
3

Elimination Act (PREA) audits to assist the Bureau of Prisons in identifying and 

addressing the various factors that contribute to inmates’ risk of being sexually abused 

and/or assaulted in each of the facilities it operates. Nakamoto Group, Inc., failed in its 

duty to plaintiff to conduct reasonable and appropriate audits under the contract, which 

was a proximate cause of the damages suffered by J.P. 

8. As a result of the harm sustained by her while she was an inmate at FCI 

Tallahassee, J.P. suffered injuries to include: physical harm sustained during a rape that 

required hospitalization, and emotional harm to include the dignitary injury of being 

forced to endure sexual activity to which she did not consent, for which she had neither 

the legal nor volitional capacity to consent, and from which she had no lawful means of 

escape. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§1331 and 1346 (b)(1) as the claims in this case are brought against the United 

States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.§ 2671, et seq.,

against the individual Defendants under the Eighth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and against Nakamoto Group, Inc., under 28 U.S.C.§

1332. The parties to this action are completely diverse as to citizenship and/or state of 

incorporation.

10. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), as 

some or all the events upon which this action is based occurred in the Northern District 

of Florida. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 39
4

11. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and obtained what 

relief the administrative remedies could provide.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

12. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff J.P. was a federal prisoner confined 

at FCI Tallahassee, in Tallahassee, Florida, which facility is within the Northern District 

of Florida.

Defendants

13. The United States of America is a sovereign entity named herein pursuant 

to the FTCA. 

14. Defendant the United States of America oversees the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons “Bureau” or “BOP”, which is responsible for the custody and care of federal 

inmates.

15. Federal Correctional Institute Tallahassee employs correctional officers, 

facilities staff and management to oversee and operate the prison facility. The 

correctional officers are trained, managed, overseen and paid by the BOP through the 

United States Department of Justice serving “investigative or law enforcement” 

functions. 

16. The conduct of Defendants Highsmith, Wardens Coil and Jones, SIS 

Proffitt, Officer Pulido, and Officer Brown, as complained of herein subjects the United 

States of America to liability for improper actions committed within the course and 

scope of their employment.

17. At all times relevant to this complaint, Highsmith was employed by the 

BOP as a Correctional Officer at FCI Tallahassee, in which capacity he was responsible 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 39
5

for, among other things, maintaining security at FCI Tallahassee and for providing

safekeeping, care, and protection of inmates incarcerated there, including J.P. 

18. Defendant Highsmith is a serial sexual abuser of BOP inmates. 

Highsmith’s practice of raping inmates in FCI Tallahassee’s custody has been 

documented, ignored and/or covered up by the BOP and by officials and guards at FCI 

Tallahassee since at least 2014. 

19. Highsmith was known to the FCI Tallahassee Management Team and the 

Prison Investigative Agencies to be a sexual predator, but he was allowed unrestricted 

and unsupervised access to female inmates.

20. Highsmith engaged in the systematic sexual harassment, sexual abuse, 

and sexual assault of Plaintiff J.P.

21. Warden Jones was at all times relevant to this complaint, a BOP employee 

and, on information and belief, a Florida resident. Defendant Jones was Warden of FCI 

Tallahassee in 2014, in which capacity she had full administrative responsibility for the 

entire institution. 

22. As Warden, Jones had overall responsibility for facility-wide adherence to 

policies concerning sexually abusive behavior by FCI Tallahassee guards against 

inmates. As Warden, Jones was responsible for compliance with BOP and PREAmandated standards. Jones was also responsible for supervising, training, and 

disciplining correctional officers at FCI Tallahassee. Jones is named in both her official 

and individual capacities. 

23. Warden Coil was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a BOP employee 

and, on information and belief, a Florida resident. Defendant Coil was Warden of FCI 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 39
6

Tallahassee in 2018 and 2019, in which capacity he had full administrative 

responsibility for the entire institution.

24. As Warden, Coil had overall responsibility for facility-wide adherence to 

policies concerning sexually abusive behavior by FCI Tallahassee guards against 

inmates. As Warden, Coil was responsible for compliance with BOP, FPC and PREAmandated standards. Coil was also responsible for supervising, training, and 

disciplining correctional officers at FCI Tallahassee. Coil is named in both his official 

and individual capacities

25. SIS Officer Proffitt (“Officer Proffitt” or “Proffitt”) was responsible for, among 

other things, assisting the management team in providing safekeeping, care, and protection of 

inmates at FCI Tallahassee in his investigative capacity to report the information regarding the 

sexual misconduct of Highsmith.. 

26. At all times relevant to this complaint, Correctional Officer Geoffrey 

Brown (“Officer Brown” or “Brown”) was employed as a correctional officer at FCI 

Tallahassee and, on information and belief, is a Florida resident. At all times relevant to 

this complaint, Officer Brown was responsible for, among other things, providing

safekeeping, care, and protection of inmates at FCI Tallahassee, including the Plaintiff. 

Officer Brown is named in his individual capacity. 

27. At all times relevant to this complaint, Correctional Officer Manuel Pulido 

(“Officer Pulido” or “Pulido”) was employed as a correctional officer at FCI Tallahassee 

and, on information and belief, is a Florida resident. At all times relevant to this 

complaint, Officer Pulido was responsible for, among other things, providing

safekeeping, care, and protection of inmates at FCI Tallahassee, including the Plaintiff. 

Officer Pulido is named in his individual capacity. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 6 of 39
7

28. Defendant United States of America has various agencies including but not 

limited to the Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”), the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), 

the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and many other special agents and supervisory 

attorneys who are responsible for the investigation and prosecution of correctional 

officers sexually abusing inmates at federal institutions including FCI Tallahassee. 

These agencies failed to timely investigate and prosecute any of the criminal activity 

perpetrated by Officer Highsmith. SIS, OIA, OIG and DOJ are collectively referred to 

herein as the “Prison Investigative Agencies”.

29. All defendants above were, during all conduct relevant to this complaint, 

acting under color of law.

30. Defendant Nakamoto Group, Inc. (“Nakamoto”) is a Delaware 

Corporation with its principal place of business in the state of Maryland.

31. The BOP contracted with Nakamoto to carry out inspections of FCI 

Tallahassee in accordance with the standards mandated by PREA. Nakamoto was 

contractually obliged to carry out those inspections as part of the auditing process 

required by PREA for the benefit of all inmates in the custody of FCI Tallahassee. 

32. At all times relevant to this complaint, Nakamoto was the auditor for 

inspecting, monitoring and oversight of BOP compliance with PREA standards at FCI 

Tallahassee.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations set 

forth herein.

33. Highsmith was hired by the BOP in April 2007 at FCI-Coleman, and later 

transferred to FCI-Tallahassee in May 2010.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 7 of 39
8

34. Highsmith attended and completed the BOP’s Correctional Training 

Program, Phases I (an introductory two-week course) and II (a three-week long course)

and also received a week of specific training on how to supervise female offenders.

35. On information and belief, Highsmith has received annual refresher 

training every year forward beginning in 2008 which includes continuing education on 

the prohibition of sexual abuse of inmates.

36. BOP policies are contained in documents titled “program statements” 

which set forth rules and procedures that all BOP employees are required to follow.

37. Program Statement 3420.11 sets out the duties and responsibilities of all 

BOP employees. It requires that employees, “[A]s soon as practicable (but no later than 

24 hours) report to their CEO (or other appropriate authority such as the Office of 

Internal Affairs or the Office of the Inspector General) any violation, appearance of a 

violation, or attempted violation of these Standards or of any law, rule, or regulation. 

Every employee is required to immediately report to management any act or omission 

by any person that could result in a breach of institution security. Failure by employees 

to follow these regulations and policy or any other Bureau policy or relevant 

regulation(s) could result in disciplinary action, up to and including removal.” 

38. Program Statement 3420.11 (Standards of Employee Conduct) mandates 

that “[n]o employee shall engage in, or allow another person to engage in, sexual 

behavior with an inmate. There is never any such thing as consensual sex between staff 

and inmates.” 

39. Program Statement 3420.11 states that BOP employees are subject to 

administrative action, up to an including removal, for any inappropriate contact, sexual 

behavior, or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 8 of 39
9

prosecutable crime. Physical contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions 

for misconduct of a sexual nature.

40. Program Statement 3420.11 also states that “Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 

109A provides penalties of up to life imprisonment for sexual abuse of inmates where 

force is used or threatened. Sexual contact is defined as the intentional touching of the 

genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, 

humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. All 

allegations of sexual abuse will be thoroughly investigated and, when appropriate, 

referred to authorities for prosecution.”

41. Each new BOP employee, contractor, and volunteer must receive and sign 

a form acknowledging receipt of Program Statement 3420.11. 

42. On November 10, 2014, Highsmith signed an acknowledgement that he 

received the updated version of Program Statement 3420.11.

43. On information and belief, as BOP employees, Defendants Jones, Coil, 

Proffitt, Brown and Pulido, all similarly received and signed an acknowledgement of 

training for updated versions of Program Statement 3420.11.

44. BOP Program Statement 5324.12 (Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention 

and Intervention Program) concerning the prevention of, and intervention upon 

sexually abusive behavior, implements zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual activity, 

including sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and provides guidelines to address 

prohibited and/or illegal sexually abusive behavior. 

45. Program Statement 5324.12 is the controlling BOP policy addressing the 

prevention of, and intervention upon, sexually abusive behavior. It is disseminated 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 9 of 39
10

agency-wide and applies to all facilities operated by the BOP and every staff member 

working within each correctional facility.

46. Program Statement 5324.12 lays out duties and responsibilities with 

respect to conduct for all BOP employees, and mandates particular staff and agency 

reporting duties with respect to sexually abusive behavior, including concerning 

incidents or possible incidents of sexual abuse or sexual harassment: it mandates that 

“[a]ll staff must report information concerning incidents or possible incidents of sexual 

abuse or sexual harassment to the Operations Lieutenant, or where appropriate, in 

accordance with the Program Statement 3420.11.”

47. BOP policy requires the training of all employees who may have contact 

with inmates on how to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse and 

sexual harassment prevention, detection, reporting, and response policies and 

procedures.

48. Between January 21 and 24, 2014, Highsmith completed annual refresher 

training during which time he signed a training acknowledgement that he had received 

and understood the BOP’s sexual abuse prevention and intervention program training. 

49. Inmates, employees, and the public may file a complaint at the BOP 

facility where an incident of sexual abuse occurred; through BOP’s Office of Internal 

Affairs; or with the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG). In 

accordance with the agency’s own Standards of Employee Conduct, BOP employees 

must report any violation of those Standards, or any rule or law within one business day 

of the incident to their Chief Executive Officer (CEO), OIA, or the OIG. Decisions 

regarding disciplinary action in cases where the allegations are sustained are managed 

by BOP’s Human Resources Management (HRM) and BOP’s Office of General Counsel.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 10 of 39
11

2014 Rape of T.D. by Highsmith

50. In 2014, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) received information from 

BOP Special Investigative Agent (SIA) Dan Clark alleging that on April 30, 2014, 

Highsmith sexually assaulted inmate T.D. inside the Officer’s Station in C-Unit North of 

FCI Tallahassee. 

51. This report by SIA Dan Clark triggered a joint investigation between the 

OIG and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the allegations involving Highsmith. 

OIG investigators interviewed six staff members, thirteen inmates (including the victim, 

T.D.), and Highsmith. OIG investigators reviewed surveillance video and medical 

records of the victim. Additionally, physical evidence, including articles of clothing 

belonging to the victim and a washcloth used by her, fabric from the desk chair in the 

officer’s station used by Highsmith, swabs from the same desk chair, the telephone cord 

in the officer’s station, as well as a tampon, and vaginal and cervical swabs were 

collected as part of the OIG investigation.

52. OIG investigators also interviewed multiple Correctional Officers (“CO”s). 

Of the COs interviewed, none reported knowledge of Highsmith’s alleged sexual assaults 

except for C.O. Alfred Brannan, who reported that when he arrived at work the morning 

of May 1, 2014 “[name redacted] told him that Highsmith had sexual intercourse with 

[T.D.]. [Name redacted] reported the incident to Counselor Manuel Pulido and Captain 

Roan McCullogh”. 

53. The OIG determined that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated 

that Highsmith likely sexually abused inmate T.D. and another unnamed victim who 

had since been released from BOP custody and was deported from the United States. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 11 of 39
12

54. BOP Program Statement 3420.11 (Official Investigation) requires that 

“...[d]uring the course of an official investigation, employees are to cooperate fully by 

providing all pertinent information they may have. Full cooperation requires truthfully 

responding to questions...”

55. In its investigative report to Warden Jones, the OIG noted that 

Highsmith’s denials of the incidents of sexual assault under investigation were not 

credible and constituted false statements to the OIG. The OIG found that Highsmith’s 

denials of the allegations were not credible because, among other things, his denials 

were inconsistent with the testimony of eyewitnesses and with the OIG’s review of video 

surveillance following the incident.

56. The OIG concluded that by failing to provide truthful information during 

his interviews by OIG, Highsmith had further violated BOP Program Statement 3420.11 

provisions concerning employee conduct during official investigations. 

57. The Chief of BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), forwarded the OIG’s 

investigative report concerning the sexual assault of T.D. and a second unnamed inmate 

by Highsmith to Warden Jones. The cover letter to the OIG’s report indicated that, 

“[b]ased on the OIG’s findings,” misconduct in the nature of an “Appearance of an 

Inappropriate Relationship” was “sustained” – requiring the Warden to “proceed with 

disciplinary or adverse action, and notify this [the Office of Internal Affairs] office of the 

action taken.”

58. The OIA’s letter, and the OIG’s investigative report on Highsmith were 

also forwarded to H.J. Marberry, who was at that time the Regional Director of BOP’s 

Southeast Regional Office. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 12 of 39
13

59. Warden Jones was aware that the allegation of sexual assault against 

Officer Highsmith was substantiated by the joint investigation of the OIG and the FBI, 

but she did not seek to have Highsmith removed. 

60. Instead, Warden Jones decided that Highsmith’s punishment should take 

the form of a 10 calendar-day suspension. 

61. Wardens Coil and Jones, as well as SIS Proffitt and Officer Pulido, were 

aware that Highsmith had raped an inmate, T.D., in 2014.

62. Warden Jones was aware that the OIG and the FBI had uncovered 

substantial evidence that Highsmith had sexually assaulted T.D. in 2014 and that he lied 

to investigators about the sexual assaults when he was later questioned.

63. Despite the clear evidence uncovered from these extensive investigations, 

Wardens Jones and Coil failed to take steps to prevent Highsmith from having 

unsupervised access to female inmates to whom he posed a clear risk of sexual abuse 

and sexual assault.

64. Warden Coil failed to take appropriated steps to prevent Highsmith from 

having unsupervised access to female inmates to whom he posed a clear risk of sexual 

abuse and sexual assault.

65. Officer Pulido was aware that the allegation of sexual assault against 

Highsmith was substantiated by the joint investigation of the OIG and the FBI and he 

and participated in the employee grievance process, acting on behalf of Highsmith. 

66. Officer Pulido was aware that Highsmith had a history of sexually abusing 

female inmates and was aware that Highsmith had raped inmate T.D. in 2014 and then 

lied to OIG investigators concerning the sexual assault.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 13 of 39
14

67. Officer Pulido failed to take appropriate steps to protect female inmates 

including J.P., from being assaulted by Highsmith, despite that fact that, Pulido, as 

J.P.’s correctional counsellor, would have been aware of the risk that Officer Highsmith 

posed to her and to all female inmates.

68. On January 30, 2017, T.D. filed a complaint in federal court (Case No. 17-

CV-00059) against defendants U.S.A. and Officer Highsmith, alleging, inter alia that 

she had been sexually assaulted by Highsmith. 

69. On January 11, 2018 Warden Jones’ deposition was taken in Case No. 17-CV00059.

70. On February 22, 2018, Case No. 17-CV-00059 was settled for a 

considerable monetary amount and subsequently dismissed on the same day. 

J.P. at FCI Tallahassee

71. On September 13, 2016, J.P. weas sentenced and soon thereafter entered 

FCI Tallahassee to serve her custodial sentence.

72. As part of J.P.’s admission to FCI Tallahassee, she was informed about the 

BOP’s zero tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse of inmates and the reporting of 

sexual abuse; an Admission and Orientation Handbook; and a Prison Rape Elimination 

Act (PREA) pamphlet.

73. These orientation materials explain that inmates have a right to be free 

from sexual abuse by anyone, including staff members, the lack of an inmate’s ability to 

consent to sexual abuse by staff members, the means of reporting sexual abuse, and 

available resources to inmates facing sexual abuse.

74. The standard Admissions and Orientation Handbook given to J.P. on her 

entry to FCI Tallahassee also further explained that, as an inmate, she could report 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 14 of 39
15

sexual abuse to staff members within the institution, including a case manager, 

Chaplain, psychologist, SIS, the Warden, “or any other staff member you trust”. 

75. In the early months of 2018, Officer Highsmith began a campaign of 

sexualized harassment against J.P. This pattern of conduct began with Highsmith’s 

paying an inordinate number of visits to her living area, paying extra attention to her, 

and unnecessarily getting physically close to her. 

This pattern of sexual harassment escalated to incidents of sexual abuse against J.P.

76. In May of 2018, while conducting his rounds inspecting D-Unit, Officer 

Highsmith demanded that J.P. expose her breasts and genitalia to him. J.P. refused to 

expose herself to Officer Highsmith. This incident – and the fact that Highsmith did this 

in an open housing area in view of other inmates - shocked J.P., and caused her to live in 

fear that she would suffer further sexual abuse or that she would eventually be sexually 

assaulted by Officer Highsmith.

77. On information and belief, Highsmith had primary supervisory 

responsibility for the D-Unit – where J.P. was housed with dozens of other inmates -

during his regular shifts.

78. The D-Unit at FCI Tallahassee is an inmate living dormitory with an 

adjoining office referred to as the “guard’s office”. Each “guard’s office” is used by the 

guard on shift with primary supervisory responsibility for the housing unit. 

79. On information and belief, Highsmith was the only officer directly 

supervising D-Unit during his scheduled shift, and the “guard’s office” was Officer 

Highsmith’s office, de facto, during those shifts when he was assigned to supervise DUnit.

J.P. is Sexually Assaulted by Officer Highsmith

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 15 of 39
16

80. In June of 2018, in the days following the death of her brother, James2, CO 

Highsmith approached J.P. to offer to escort her to the guard’s office in D-Unit, where 

she could place a call to her mother concerning her brother’s death.

81. J.P. stood in the guard’s office and place a short call to her mother. As J.P. 

hung up the phone, CO Highsmith told her “you know you have to pay for that call”.

82. CO Highsmith did not wait for a reply in response from J.P. as he walked 

toward her and demanded that she turn around and put her hands on the desk. CO 

Highsmith did not wait for J.P. to comply before he physically turned her away from 

him and pushed her toward the desk.

83. CO Highsmith pulled down J.P.’s pants and raped her anally. 

84. This rape caused J.P. unspeakable physical pain, and it carried on for 

approximately five minutes. 

85. Officer Highsmith did not wear a condom and he ejaculated inside J.P.’s 

body.

86. Having finished raping J.P. anally, CO Highsmith dismissed her, telling 

her to “wipe” and to “go on about [her] business”.

87. J.P. immediately experienced significant physical pain as a result of the 

sexual assault.

88. J.P. attempted to keep the sexual assault to herself, and she immediately 

withdrew from her social contact with other inmates and withdrew from self-help 

programming.

 2 This is a pseudonym used to protect the identities of the plaintiff and her family. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 16 of 39
17

89. J.P. did not immediately report the rape because she feared retaliation by 

guards and other inmates. J.P. feared placement in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) 

as one possible immediate impact of reporting the rape, as she feared the isolation of 

being housed in what is a de facto condition of “solitary confinement”.

90. J.P. made a formal request to Officer West to be transferred out of 

Tallahassee to any another BOP facility, but could not bring herself to give the reason for 

her request.

91. Officer West did not make further inquiries of J.P., and because her 

request was seemingly without basis, it was either not processed or constructively 

denied. Neither Mr. West nor any other staff member followed up on the reasons for her 

request for an immediate transfer from FCI Tallahassee.

92. J.P. managed to keep the incident to herself until July 14, 2018, when Lt. 

King asked her how she was doing. J.P. broke down and told Lt. King that she had been 

raped by Officer Highsmith. 

93. Lt. King immediately encouraged J.P. to formally report that she had been 

raped by Officer Highsmith. J.P. initially refused to make this formal report, and told Lt. 

King that she feared Officer Highsmith and she feared retaliation by other guards, by 

inmates, and by administrative staff at FCI Tallahassee.

94. J.P. reluctantly agreed to go to the Emergency Room with Lt. King and 

another guard, whose name she does not recall. 

95. J.P. was taken to Capital Region Health Center at approximately 9:00 p.m. 

on July 14th, 2018. She was examined in the emergency room and she was issued 

discharge instructions for sexual assault after-care and a prescription for the injuries to 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 17 of 39
18

her anus that resulted from being anally raped by Officer Highsmith. She was 

discharged at 10:58 p.m., the same night. 

96. This incident and Officer Highsmith’s involvement in it was or should have 

been known to Warden Coil, who had a duty to safeguard not only J.P. but all female 

inmates – including J.P. - from further sexual assault by Officer Highsmith. 

97. BOP policy mandates that staff must report incidents of sexual abuse to 

the Operations Lieutenant, who is required to immediately safeguard the inmate. 

98. BOP policy also mandates that the Operations Lieutenant also ensures that 

the SIS, Chief of Correctional Services, Institution PREA Compliance Manager, and 

Warden are notified of any incident of sexual abuse. 

99. Upon his examination of inmate J.P. for injuries sustained during the rape 

by Officer Highsmith, Dr. Barr called FCI Tallahassee and demanded to speak to the 

Warden. 

100. On information and belief, Dr. Barr did not reach the Warden, but rather 

spoke with Lt. King. 

101. It is unknown what action Lt. King took on the basis of her conversation 

with Dr. Barr.

102. J.P. was returned to FCI Tallahassee, but she was not immediately placed 

in the SHU for protective purposes or to protect the integrity of any investigation of 

Officer Highsmith, as is required by BOP Policy. 

Inmate and Staff Campaign of Retaliation Against J.P.

103. In the days after her return to FCI Tallahassee, J.P. confided to her friend, 

S.P., that she had been taken to the emergency room as a result of a sexual assault by 

Officer Highsmith. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 18 of 39
19

104. On information and belief, another inmate, K.L. overheard this 

conversation and in the following days and undertook to intimidate J.P. 

105. J.P. feared an imminent physical attack by inmate K.L. 

106. J.P. attempted to make a formal complaint to her correctional counsellor, 

Officer Brown, and related to him that she believed she was in danger of imminent 

attack by K.L. and explained that Officer Highsmith was involved in some way with 

K.L.’s sudden animosity toward her. J.P. had had no prior dealings with K.L.

107. On information and belief, Officer Brown took no steps to further 

investigate this claim, and told J.P. that if K.L. attacked her, then “may the best woman 

win”.

108. J.P. was physically attacked the following day by K.L. 

109. J.P. was brought before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer in the aftermath of 

the attack for “fighting” with K.L.

110. J.P. told the off-site DHO Officer, Officer Orr, who was presiding over the 

disciplinary hearing over a voice-over-internet protocol (internet-video phone call) that 

she had recently been sexually assaulted by Officer Highsmith and that she was not 

“fighting” with K.L. but rather had been physically attacked by K.L. J.P. also explained 

that she believed there was some connection between this attack and K.L.’s overhearing 

a discussion of the rape while the three inmates – J.P., S.P. and K.L. were in the shower 

area. 

111. On information and belief, Officer Orr took no steps to report this as a 

possible incident of retaliation relating to a formal report of a sexual assault, as is 

required by BOP Policy.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 19 of 39
20

112. Instead, Officer Orr dismissed this information and told J.P. to “take it up 

with someone at FCI Tallahassee”.

113. J.P. was placed in SHU for 20 days and lost 27 days good time that had 

accrued against her remaining sentence and she lost her place in the drug counselling 

program.

114. In the months following J.P.’s rape and subsequent hospital visit, Officer 

Highsmith remained on duty at FCI Tallahassee, and he was not prevented from having 

access to female inmates pending the internal investigation of J.P.’s sexual assault. 

115. Neither Warden Coil, Officer Brown, Officer Pulido, nor Lt. Proffitt, or any 

SIS or SIA officer took steps to prevent Officer Highsmith from having access to J.P. 

while she was housed in SHU pending any investigation into the sexual assault by 

Officer Highsmith or any investigation into the retaliatory nature of the attack on J.P. by 

K.L. 

116. BOP facilities are mandated to monitor inmates for at least 90 days 

following a report of sexual abuse, and are required to “monitor the conduct and 

treatment of inmates or staff who reported the sexual abuse and of inmates who were 

reported to have suffered sexual abuse to see if there are changes that may suggest 

possible retaliation by inmates or staff, and shall act promptly to remedy any such 

retaliation. Items the agency should monitor include any inmate disciplinary reports, 

housing, or program changes...”

117. Highsmith was assigned to guard J.P. in the SHU and, until he was later 

reassigned, he was a direct and observable presence to her while she was located there.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 20 of 39
21

118. On information and belief, J.P. was subsequently subjected to a campaign 

of retaliation by Tallahassee staff on her release from SHU, to include being placed in 

the SHU at various times for disciplinary infractions she did not commit.

119. Retaliation against victims of sexual assault is an occurrence well known to 

BOP officials, and it is strictly prohibited by BOP Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention 

and Intervention Program Statement 5324.12.

120. On information and belief, around the time J.P.’s rape by Officer 

Highsmith, inmate S.P. confronted Officer Highsmith and was given a disciplinary 

write-up for openly and vocally accusing him of sexually abusive conduct toward her 

fellow inmates. 

121. On information and belief, S.P. was punished for this disciplinary 

infraction with a period of detention in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) that lasted 

for over a week, and she was not returned to D-Unit on her release from SHU. 

122. When J.P. learned that Officer Highsmith was still employed by the BOP 

and still worked at FCI Tallahassee even after her sexual assault, she filed a confidential 

administrative remedy request requesting to be transferred from that facility to “any 

other facility” and citing the Officer Highsmith’s sexual assault as the reason for her 

request. This request was summarily denied and she appealed the request to Warden 

Coil, to Lt. Rivera, and to the Southeast Regional Office. BOP policy provides that 

inmates are encouraged to report allegations of sexually abusive behavior to staff at all 

levels, including local, regional and Central Offices. 

123. Following her request for transfer, J.P. was approached by Lt. Rivera, who 

is responsible for PREA compliance at FCI Tallahassee. On information and belief, Lt. 

Rivera told J.P. to “keep the rape to herself”.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 21 of 39
22

124. J.P. was subsequently placed in SHU detention without a disciplinary 

hearing. It was explained to her by Lt. Rivera that she was being detained in SHU 

“pending an SIS investigation”. 

125. On October 17, 2018, J.P. was released from SHU.

COUNT I

Eighth Amendment: Sexual Abuse, Battery, Sexual Harassment

(Officer Highsmith)

126. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

127. As an inmate in the custody of the BOP, J.P. had a clearly established right 

under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution not to be subjected to 

cruel and unusual punishment while incarcerated. 

128. Sexual abuse by a guard is not a legitimate form of punishment, it is not an 

ancillary component of any prison sentence, and it serves no legitimate penal purpose.

129. Highsmith violated J.P.’s rights by assaulting her, using coercion to have 

sexual contact with her for his gratification, and sexually abusing her while she was 

incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee.

130. Highsmith, individually, failed in his duty to provide J.P. with 

constitutionally safe and secure conditions of confinement by subjecting her to sexual 

abuse, sexual assault, and battery.

131. Highsmith acted intentionally, maliciously, and/or in reckless disregard of 

Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights, by sexually assaulting and raping her while 

she was incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee, despite knowing that severe emotional distress 

was certain to occur.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 22 of 39
23

132. As a direct and proximate result of Highsmith’s sexual abuse and 

associated misconduct, J.P. was intentionally subjected to physical and emotional 

injury, depression, post-traumatic stress, embarrassment, and other damages, all or 

some of which shall continue indefinitely or permanently, as well as retaliation.

133. The conduct of Highsmith which proximately caused J.P.’s injuries was of 

such a quality and nature as to warrant Highsmith’s liability for punitive damages, in 

accordance with applicable law.

134. J.P. is entitled to recover from Highsmith all of her damages recognized by 

applicable law.

135. All of Highsmith’s acts and omissions were taken while acting under color 

of law and in the scope and course of his position as a senior Corrections Officer at FCI 

Tallahassee. 

COUNT II

Eighth Amendment: Failure to Intervene, Deliberate Indifference

(Defendants Jones, Coil, Proffitt, Brown and Pulido)

136. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

137. Defendants Warden Jones, Warden Coil, SIS Officer Proffitt, Officer 

Brown, and Officer Pulido (collectively referred to as “correctional defendants”) each 

owed a duty to J.P. while she was incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee to protect her by 

ensuring that she served her sentence of imprisonment in a facility that is “safe, 

humane, cost efficient and appropriately secure.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 23 of 39
24

138. Warden Jones knew that Highsmith had sexually assaulted T.D. at FCI 

Tallahassee in 2014 in contravention of the BOP’s Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention 

and Intervention policy. 

139. Warden Jones was also aware that Highsmith had provided false 

statements to OIG and FBI investigators in contravention of the Standards of Conduct. 

140. The Correctional Defendants breached their duties to J.P. by providing 

and/or permitting Highsmith unrestricted and unsupervised one-on-one access to J.P.

while she was incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee despite knowledge of Highsmith’s past 

and continuing sexual abuse and harassment of female inmates. 

141. Warden Jones was aware that the OIG had investigated the rape of T.D. 

and found that the evidence of that conduct warranted, a referral of the case to the 

United States Attorney for criminal prosecution.

142. Warden Jones failed to appropriately discipline Highsmith for his sexual 

assault of inmate T.D.

143. Warden Jones failed to ensure that the Regional Director and the Office of 

Internal Affairs were notified of the allegation involving Highsmith’s sexual assault of 

T.D. 

144. The Office of the Regional Director had information concerning the 

allegations of Highsmith’s sexually abusive conduct toward inmates when S.P. filed her 

administrative remedy request identifying Highsmith as an ongoing threat to the safety 

and security of the inmates at FCI Tallahassee.

145. Despite such knowledge, none of the Correctional Defendants prevented 

Highsmith from accessing female inmates, and he used that access to isolate at least two 

inmates in 2018 in the guard’s office, where he raped them. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 24 of 39
25

146. Warden Coil was or should have been apprised of the incident involving 

J.P. in June of 2018. 

147. Warden Coil also had access to Highsmith’s personnel file and other 

information from other sources revealing Highsmith’s history of and proclivity toward 

committing sexual assaults against female inmates, including his sexual assault of T.D. 

in 2014.

148. Officer Pulido as J.P.’s correctional counsellor was aware, and the other 

Correctional Defendants either were aware or should have been aware, that J.P. had 

been brought to the hospital after having been sexually assaulted by Officer Highsmith, 

and were aware that she had been housed in SHU subsequent to and as a result of the 

sexual assault, supposedly so as to separate her from Officer Highsmith; however, 

despite having knowledge that Officer Highsmith had access to J.P. at SHU, defendants 

did not prevent him from being assigned to the SHU.

149. Each of the Correctional Defendants was deliberately indifferent to the 

risk faced by J.P. relative to Officer Highsmith because each failed to take reasonable 

steps to address the danger that he posed to J.P. and to all inmates.

150. In the face of this known risk to Plaintiff’s safety, the deliberate 

indifference of the Correctional Defendants, who were responsible for the custody, care,

safety, and “correctional treatment” of J.P., was a direct and proximate cause of the 

violation of J.P.’s rights under the United States Constitution and Plaintiff’s resulting 

damages. 

151. The acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Wardens Jones and Coil and 

Officers Proffitt, Brown, and Pulido constituted a knowing violation of J.P.’s clearly 

established constitutional rights.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 25 of 39
26

152. J.P.’s constitutional right not to be sexually abused or assaulted in prison 

was firmly established before the BOP rules establishing PREA-compliant mandatory 

procedures for handling sexual abuse cases went into effect on June 24, 2015. 

153. Wardens Jones and Coil and Officers Proffitt, Brown, and Pulido, failed 

in their respective duties to provide J.P. with constitutionally safe and secure conditions 

of confinement by and through their deliberate indifference to the substantial, 

longstanding, and obvious risk posed by Highsmith.

154. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of Wardens Jones and Coil

and Officers Proffitt, Brown, and Pulido, directly and proximately caused the violation 

of J.P.’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from sexual abuse and sexual battery while 

incarcerated and Plaintiff’s resulting damages.

155. Wardens Jones and Coil and Officers Proffitt, Brown, and Pulido directly 

and proximately caused the violation of J.P.’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution by, as one example, failing to train, supervise, and discipline 

FCI Tallahassee staff and employees and/or report known or suspected sexual 

misconduct, thereby failing to adequately prevent further constitutional violations. 

156. Wardens Jones and Coil and Officers Proffitt, Brown, and Pulido directly 

and proximately caused the violation of J.P.’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution by failing to adhere to and /or ensure that FCI Tallahassee 

staff followed PREA-mandated policy for responding to suspected or known instances of 

sexual abuse at the institution, thereby failing to adequately prevent further 

constitutional violations. 

157. Wardens Jones and Coil directly and proximately caused the violation of 

J.P.’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 26 of 39
27

ensure the coordination of departments within the facility in preventing, detecting, 

intervening, and appropriately responding to sexually abusive behavior.

158. Wardens Jones and Coil, and SIS Proffitt directly and proximately caused 

the violation of J.P.’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution by consistently failing to establish and enforce procedures for investigating 

and reporting disciplinary infractions so as to limit opportunities for FCI Tallahassee 

staff to be alone with inmates unsupervised, providing the opportunity for them to have 

sexual contact with or to sexually assault or rape persons in the custody of the BOP at 

FCI Tallahassee.

159. Officers Brown and Pulido directly and proximately caused the violation of 

J.P.’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to 

make such further inquiries or interventions as would be reasonable given their

knowledge that Highsmith had been alone for an unknown period of time, unsupervised 

and unobserved, in an office with an inmate, particularly when knowing of Highsmith’s 

sexual proclivities and past conduct respecting inmates. 

160. By their acts and omissions, Wardens Jones and Coil, and Officers Brown, 

Pulido, and SIS Proffitt placed J.P. in substantial risk of sexual abuse and took no action 

to protect J.P. from further sexual abuse by Officer Highsmith when they failed to 

formally report or make such further inquiries as would be reasonable given their duty 

to act immediately in mitigating such risk. 

161. Wardens Jones and Coil, SIS Proffitt, and Officers Brown and Pulido, 

engaged in a direct violation of J.P.’s constitutional rights by failing to take appropriate 

measures to protect J.P. and all inmates at FCI Tallahassee in the face of their actual or 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 27 of 39
28

constructive knowledge of the risk posed by Officer Highsmith, thereby subjecting the 

plaintiff and entire inmate population to substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse. 

162. The Correctional Defendants breached their duties to J.P. under PREA as 

follows: 

• Section 115.11 – failing to enforce zero tolerance policy 

• Section 115.13 – failing to supervise and monitor (video surveillance) one-onone inmate/officer contact 

• Section 115.15 – permitting improper cross-gender pat downs 

• Section 115.17 – hiring, promoting and retaining officers who “may” have had 

improper sexual contact 

• Section 115.43 – punishing sex victims with involuntary segregated housing, 

loss of privileges and work permits 

• Section 115.61 – failing to report suspicion of sexual abuse 

• Section 115.67 – failing to protect inmates from retaliation after reporting abuse 

• Section 115.76 – failing to discipline staff for sexual misconduct.

As a direct and proximate result of each correctional defendant’s misconduct, J.P. was 

intentionally subjected to physical and emotional injury, depression, post-traumatic 

stress, embarrassment, and other damages, all or some of which shall continue 

indefinitely or permanently, as well as retaliation.

163. The conduct of each of the correctional defendants which proximately 

caused J.P.’s injuries was of such a quality and nature as to warrant punitive damages

against him/her, in accordance with applicable law.

164. J.P. is entitled to recover from the Correctional Defendants all of her 

damages recognized by applicable law.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 28 of 39
29

165. All of the conduct of the respective Correctional Defendants upon which 

this action is based while each defendant was acting under color of law and in the scope 

and course of his or her position as a BOP employee and/or agent and/or representative

at FCI Tallahassee.

COUNT III

Federal Tort Claims Act: NEGLIGENCE

(United States of America)

166. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

167. Defendant the United States of America is responsible for the oversight of 

its employees, which includes officers and staff at federal correctional institutions, 

including United States Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee.

168. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable for 

damages caused by the negligent or wrongful acts of its employees acting within the 

scope of their employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private 

person, would be liable in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.

169. Federal law specifically requires the BOP to "provide for the safekeeping, 

care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the 

United States" and to "provide for the protection ... of all persons charged with or 

convicted of offenses against the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2)-(3).

170. Defendant United States and the supervisors and employees of FCI 

Tallahassee have a duty to provide inmates with a safe and secure environment, free of 

dangers, including the dangers of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

171. As a premises owner/operator, the United States has a duty to provide 

inmates with a reasonably safe place, which specifically includes a place reasonably free 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 29 of 39
30

and safe from known sexual abusers and rapists and/or individuals who pose a 

foreseeable risk of sexual abuse or rape.

172. Correctional officers and other prison officials at FCI Tallahassee have a 

duty to protect inmates from harm caused by correctional officers and other prison 

officials.

173. Correctional officers and other prison officials at FCI Tallahassee have a 

duty to house inmates in a safe and secure manner.

174. Correctional officers and other prison officials at FCI Tallahassee have a 

duty to protect inmates from known and obvious dangers posed by correctional officers 

and other prison officials.

175. Correctional officers and other prison officials at FCI Tallahassee have a 

non-discretionary duty, pursuant to PREA, to enforce a policy of “zero-tolerance” with 

respect to sexual abuse of inmates by staff.

176. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 115.17(f), FCI Tallahassee and Warden Jones and 

Warden Coil both had a non-discretionary duty to ask Officer Highsmith in interviews 

and written self-evaluations conducted as part of his performance reviews about all 

incidents of alleged sexual abuse by Highsmith, including but not limited to the incident 

described by T.D. in 2014. Upon information and belief, FCI Tallahassee and Wardens 

Jones and Coil breached this non-discretionary duty. 

177. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 115.31, BOP and FCI Tallahassee had a nondiscretionary duty to train employees on how to prevent sexual abuse and sexual 

harassment, the right of inmates to be free from sexual abuse and harassment, the 

dynamics of sexual abuse and harassment, the common reactions of sexual abuse and 

harassment victims, and how to detect and respond to signs of threatened and actual 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 30 of 39
31

sexual abuse and to ensure that such training was properly followed. BOP and FCI 

Tallahassee breached this duty and such breach was a proximate cause of the injuries 

and damages alleged herein. 

178. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 115.31 and 115.33, BOP and FCI Tallahassee had a 

non-discretionary duty to train employees and advise inmates of their right to be free 

from retaliation for reporting incidents of sexual harassment and sexual abuse by 

corrections officers and to ensure that such training was properly followed. BOP and 

FCI Tallahassee breached this duty and such breach was a proximate cause of the 

injuries and damages alleged herein. 

179. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 115.17, BOP and FCI Tallahassee officials have 

non-discretionary duties with respect to the hiring, promotion, and periodic review of 

their employees. Those non-discretionary duties include duties to consider, with respect 

to hiring and promotion decisions, any incidents of sexual harassment, whether the 

employee has engaged in sexual abuse, and whether the employee has been convicted or 

civilly adjudicated of sexual abuse. Upon information and belief, with respect to 

Defendants who facilitated continued employment and the transfer and promotion of 

Highsmith, BOP and FCI Tallahassee officials failed to perform their non-discretionary 

duties.

180. BOP supervisory officials have a duty to monitor, supervise, train, and 

discipline correctional staff at FCI Tallahassee in order to ensure that correctional staff 

properly perform their PREA-mandated duties so that inmates’ Eighth Amendment 

rights are not violated.

181. Corrections officers and supervisors have a non-discretionary duty to 

report suspicion of sexual abuse by corrections officers and supervisors have a nonCase 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 31 of 39
32

discretionary duty to investigate such reports and to take action with respect to 

substantiated reports.

182. Correctional officers at FCI Tallahassee knew that Highsmith posed an 

excessive and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of J.P. and that he had been 

sexually abusing inmates at FCI Tallahassee for years, including one instance involving 

the rape of T.D. One of the following had to have occurred: (1) the correctional officers, 

as alleged above, breached their non-discretionary duty to report their direct knowledge 

or belief of Highsmith’s sexual misconduct; (2) the supervisors failed in their nondiscretionary duties to investigate and take action with respect to Highsmith specific 

misconduct; or (3) corrections officers and supervisors either deliberately ignored or

were carelessly inattentive with respect to the signs all around them.

183. Prison officials at FCI Tallahassee knew or should have known that 

Highsmith should not have been permitted to have unsupervised access to inmates, 

including J.P., to whom he posed an excessive and unreasonable risk.

184. Prison officials at FCI Tallahassee knew or should have known that 

Highsmith should have been terminated or permanently kept away from all inmates 

subsequent to the incident with T.D. Instead, they allowed Officer Highsmith to retain 

his unrestricted and unsupervised access to the population of female inmates, to include 

Plaintiff J.P.

185. As a direct result of the prison officials’ breaches of their non-discretionary 

duties or their reckless, willful, wanton and careless disregard of the obvious and known 

risk to inmates in improperly performing them, J.P. suffered personal injuries

associated with and arising from sexual abuse and sexual assault at the hands of 

Highsmith.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 32 of 39
33

186. As a result of the acts and omissions upon which Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant United States of America are grounded, Plaintiff suffered severe physical and 

emotional injury, depression, post-traumatic stress, embarrassment, and other 

damages, all or some of which shall continue indefinitely or permanently, as well as

retaliation.

187. J.P. is entitled to recover from Defendant United States of America all of 

her damages recognized by applicable law.

COUNT IV

Federal Tort Claims Act: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 

DISTRESS

(United States of America)

189. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

190. Highsmith, acting within the course and scope of his employment with the 

BOP as investigative or law enforcement officials, engaged in the intentional infliction of 

emotional distress of J.P., through unwanted, non-consensual sexual abuse, sexual 

assault, and harassment as defined in section 115.6 of PREA. 

191. Highsmith’s conduct as described herein was (1) intentional and reckless 

with knowledge that emotional distress would likely result, (2) outrageous and went 

beyond all bounds of decency to be tolerated in a civilized community, (3) the direct and 

proximate cause of the emotional distress endured by Plaintiffs, and (4) severe and 

damaging. 

192. As a direct and proximate cause of the intentional infliction of emotional 

distress specified herein, Highsmith caused damage to J.P. including psychological 

trauma, emotional distress, depression, physical trauma and pain and suffering. 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 33 of 39
34

193. J.P. is entitled to damages from the United States of America under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act for the intentional infliction of emotional distress committed by 

Highsmith in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENCE

(Nakamoto Group, Inc.)

194. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

195. As mandated by PREA, the BOP conducts PREA audits at each federal 

prison facility once every three years. At all times relevant to this complaint, PREA 

audits for all BOP facilities were conducted by Nakamoto. 

196. The primary purpose of the onsite phase of the PREA audit inspection is to 

assess the day-to-day practices used by facility staff to promote sexual safety and to 

prevent rape in prison. During the onsite phase of a PREA audit, auditors are supposed 

to conduct a thorough examination of the entire facility, observe routine activities, 

interview staff and inmates, and review and retain key documents maintained by the 

facility. 

197. During the “onsite review” component of an audit, PREA compliance 

auditors are required to spend a number of days (usually three) at the facility 

conducting a site inspection and conducting interviews with both executive and rankand-file staff and inmates randomly selected by the auditor during the site visit, or 

inmates previously identified by the facility as being fairly representative of a number of 

inmate social categories, such as: youthful inmates, inmates with limited English 

language proficiency and transgender inmates. Finally, PREA audits are supposed to 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 34 of 39
35

involve a careful process of documentation selection and review. These core components 

form the foundation of a practice-based audit methodology. 

198. Nakamoto contractors conducted audits of FCI Tallahassee in June of 

2015 and in March of 2018.

199. The PREA audits conducted by Nakamoto were materially incomplete, as 

auditors failed to properly conduct required systematic reviews of documents held by 

FCI Tallahassee related to sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations over the prior 

12 months at the facility; failed to properly interview inmates and/or staff that were 

involved in or witness to PREA violations by Highsmith or any other guard.

200. Prior to going onsite to a facility, Nakamoto failed to conduct a broad 

internet search on the audited facility in advance of the audit to determine if there was 

any relevant information that might have shed light on the culture and history of the 

facility such as recent budgetary or staffing changes, legal action against the facility, 

press clippings, and other information that might inform the audit or if Nakamoto did 

conduct such a search it ignored the readily available information regarding 

longstanding and ongoing sexual misconduct at FCI Tallahassee.

201. PREA Standard 115.401(h) states, that all auditors “[shall] have access to, 

and shall observe, all areas of the audited facilities.” In order to meet the requirements 

in this Standard, the site review portion of the onsite audit must include a thorough 

examination of the entire facility. 

202. Nakamoto was required to be critically engaged with critical facility 

functions including but not limited to intake and risk screening; activity in the housing 

units; bathroom and shower procedures; staffing ratios; cameras and surveillance 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 35 of 39
36

technology deployment and use; access to reporting entities; and supervision practices 

at FCI Tallahassee. 

203. Nakamoto consistently failed to conduct thorough examinations of critical 

facility functions FCI Tallahassee.

204. Nakamoto was required to review internal records at FCI Tallahassee as 

part of the auditing process, including but not limited to background check records; 

supervisory rounds logs; risk screening and intake processing records; medical files; and 

investigative files—including a review of a representative sample of each type of record. 

205. Nakamoto failed to review appropriate records and/or failed to note 

discrepancies, irregularities or problems that should have been readily apparent from 

the well-known activities of Highsmith and/or other staff at FCI Tallahassee.

206. Nakamoto failed to use reasonable care and diligence to hire, train, and 

supervise its auditor staff to obtain sufficient facts to support all statements, 

conclusions, and findings of the audits performed at FCI Tallahassee.

207. The negligent and/or improper performance of inspections by Nakamoto

of FCI Tallahassee by failed to identify and address obvious signs of endemic sexual 

abuse at the facility and was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by 

J.P. and other female inmates at FCI Tallahassee.

208. As a direct and proximate result of Nakamoto’s negligence and 

misconduct, J.P. was intentionally subjected to physical and emotional injury, 

depression, post-traumatic stress, embarrassment, and other damages, all or some of 

which shall continue indefinitely or permanently, as well as retaliation.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 36 of 39
37

COUNT VI

BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Nakamoto Group, Inc.)

209. J.P. re-alleges and incorporates by reference all for the preceding 

allegations set forth herein.

210. Nakamoto Group, Inc. (Nakamoto) operates as an SBA 8(a) Program 

minority business which, because of such status, receives certain preferential benefits in 

applying for and receiving bids on Federal government contacts.

211. After having received federal contracts in unrelated areas of government 

work, Nakamoto entered into various contracts with the United States to perform audits 

of detention facilities (e.g., ICE facilities on the U.S. border) and to perform Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA) audits of Bureau of Prisons correctional facilities.

212. As a part of the aforementioned contracting process, Nakamoto had a 

contract to perform PREA audits at FCI Tallahassee.

213. Upon information and belief, the contract regarding PREA audits for BOP 

correctional facilities, including FCI Tallahassee, have paid Nakamoto by way of 

consideration large sums of money measured in the millions of dollars.

214. The purpose of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) auditing function, 

which the contract with Nakamoto was to provide for the BOP, was to insure compliance 

with the mandates of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) 34 U.S. Code § 30301.

215. The purpose of the act is to “provide for the analysis of the incidence and 

effect of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, 

resources, recommendations and funding to protect individuals from prison rape.” 

216. J.P. at all times relevant to the allegations herein was and she remains a 

federal inmate and thus an individual to be protected “from prison rape.”

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 37 of 39
38

217. J.P. is an individual for whom the PREA auditing function was designed to 

protect.

218. The intent and/or purpose of the contract between Nakamoto and the BOP 

either as expressed by the parties, or in the provisions of the contract, was that the 

contract primarily and directly was to benefit inmates such as J.P.

219. Nakamoto breached the contract by failing to conduct appropriate and 

meaningful PREA audits and to make appropriate and meaningful reports which would 

have provided the BOP with the necessary information to take corrective action to not 

only fulfill the purpose of PREA “to protect individuals from prison rape” but to also 

help fulfill their mandated duty to "provide for the safekeeping, care, ... of all persons 

charged with or convicted of offenses against the united states" and to "provide for the 

protection ... Of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the united 

states." Under 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2)-(3).

220. As a direct and proximate result of Nakamoto’s the breach of the contract 

between Nakamoto and the BOP, J.P. was injured and damaged as alleged above. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her the following 

relief:

1. Compensatory damages as to all Counts;

2. Punitive damages as to all counts excepting Counts III and IV against the 

United States of America under the FTCA; 

3. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with applicable law; 

and, 

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 38 of 39
39

4. Such other further relief as this Court deems just.

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all Counts so triable under applicable law.

J.P., Plaintiff

/s/Ryan J. Andrews

Ryan J. Andrews, Esq. (FBN 104703)

Andrews Law Firm

822 N Monroe St

Tallahassee, FL 32303

P: (850) 681-6416 

ryan@andrewslaw.com

service@andrewslaw.com

/s/Jay T. McCamic

Jay T. McCamic, Esq. (WVSB# 2386)

McCamic Law Firm, PLLC 

80 12th Street, Ste. 305

P.O. Box 151

Wheeling, WV 26003

Telephone: 304-238-9460

Fax: 304-830-5324

jay@mccamic.com

s/L. Dante diTrapano

L. Danté diTrapano, Esq. (WVSB# 6778)

Calwell Luce diTrapano, PLLC

500 Randolph Street

Charleston, WV 25302

Telephone: 304-343-4323 

Fax: 304-344-3684 

dditrapano@cldlaw.com

Benjamin Adams, Esq. (WSB# 11454)

badams@cldlaw.com 

Alex McLaughlin, Esq. (WVSB# 9696)

amclaughlin@cldlaw.com 

s/Anthony I. Werner

Anthony I. Werner, Esq. (WVSB# 5203)

John & Werner Law Offices, PLLC

Board of Trade Building, STE 200

80 - 12th Street

Wheeling, WV 26003

Telephone: 304-233-4380

Fax: 304-233-4387

awerner@johnwernerlaw.com

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 39 of 39