Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint Page 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

BRIAN NEWMAN AS INDEPENDENT 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

TORRY LAMONT NEWMAN, 

DECEASED, LATOSHA NEWMAN, 

JOYCE NEWMAN, NATORI NEWMAN, 

TEVIN NEWMAN, AND SHATORRY 

NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS; SHERIFF 

LARRY R. SMITH, JOHN SHOEMAKER; 

MARIA VALLEJO-ROBLES; NICHOLAS 

LEE VEGA; NORALI VELAQUEZ; TRE 

KOBE WASHINGTON; AND JOHN DOE 

SMITH COUNTY JAILERS 1-20, IN 

THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; 

TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICIANS, 

PLLC; TURN KEY HEALTH CLINICS, 

LLC; MARIA DIMACULANGA; KELLY 

NICHOLE ELLIS; and JOHN DOE 

MEDICAL PROVIDERS 1-5, 

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

This is a case of a tragic denial of medical care desperately needed by Torry 

Lamont Newman, who was incarcerated at Smith County Jail. Smith County Jailers 

ignored Mr. Newman’s pleas for help. Jail medical staff ignored hospital lab results 

indicating critical need for emergency treatment. Torry Lamont Newman sat in a jail 

cell suffering from a life-threatening critical condition that was known to jailers, 

supervisors and jail medical staff. It was only after Torry Lamont Newman suffered for 

hours and died lying on the floor in a separation cell that an ambulance was called, but 

it was too late. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and objective unreasonableness 

caused Torry Lamont Newman’s unnecessary death. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 69 PageID #: 1
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 2

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: 

Plaintiffs file this complaint and for cause of action will show the following: 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. The court has original subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under 

the Civil Rights Act of 1871 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C § 1343 (3) and (4), 

and 29 U.S. C. § 1367, because this suit presents a federal question and seeks relief pursuant 

to federal statutes providing for the protection of civil rights. This suit arises under the United 

States Constitution and federal statutes including but not necessarily limited to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

2. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising under the laws of the State of Texas 

and seeks recovery under the Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes of the State of Texas as 

allowed by law.1

 

3. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked to secure protection of and to redress 

deprivation of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth 

Amendment, and by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C §1983 and § 1985 ensuring 

due process, and providing for the equal protection and rights of all persons in every state and 

territory within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

1 See Rodgers v. Police, 819 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding “Federal civil-rights laws extend federal-question 

jurisdiction by incorporating state wrongful-death statutes. Thus, an individual may bring a claim under federal civilrights laws through Texas's wrongful-death statute”); Rhyne,973 F.2d at 390 (“This court held that 42 U.S.C. § 

1988 incorporated both [the state's] survival statute and [the] wrongful death statute to provide full remedies for 

violations of constitutional rights.”). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 69 PageID #: 2
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 3

4. The court has personal jurisdiction over Smith County because it is a Texas 

county. The court has personal jurisdiction over the natural person Defendants because they 

reside and are domiciled in, and are citizens of, Texas. 

5. Venue is proper in the Marshall Division of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because all or a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Smith County in the 

Eastern District. 

II. PARTIES 

6. Plaintiffs LaTosha Newman, Joyce Newman, NaTori Newman, Tevin 

Newman, and ShaTorry Newman, bring this suit individually and as heirs of Torry Lamont 

Newman; and Brian Newman as representative of the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman. 

LaTosha Newman is the wife of Torry Lamont Newman. Joyce Newman is the mother of 

Torry Lamont Newman. NaTori Newman, Tevin Newman, ShaTorry Newman, are the heirs 

of Torry Lamont Newman, and Brian Newman is the Independent Administrator of the Estate 

of Torry Lamont Newman. 

7. Torry Lamont Newman, the decedent, was at all times a citizen of the United 

States and died intestate. This lawsuit is brought by Brian Newman as representative of the 

Estate of Torry Lamont Newman pursuant to the Texas Probate Code. 

8. Torry Lamont Newman died in Smith County. Brian Newman brings this 

action in his fiduciary capacities. 

9. Plaintiff Joyce Newman is a natural person who resides and did reside, and 

was domiciled, in Texas at all relevant times. Joyce Newman was Torry Lamont Newman’s 

mother. Joyce Newman sues in her individual capacity as a wrongful death beneficiary under 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 3 of 69 PageID #: 3
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 4

Texas law. 

10. Plaintiff LaTosha Newman is a natural person who resides and did reside, and 

was domiciled, in Texas at all relevant times. LaTosha Newman was Torry Lamont 

Newman’s wife. LaTosha Newman sues in her individual capacity as a wrongful death 

beneficiary under Texas law and as a natural heir of the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman. 

11. Plaintiff NaTori Newman is a natural person who resides and did reside, and 

was domiciled, in Texas at all relevant times. NaTori Newman was Torry Lamont Newman’s 

daughter. NaTori Newman sues in her individual capacity as a wrongful death beneficiary 

under Texas law and as a natural heir of the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman. 

12. Plaintiff ShaTorry Newman is a natural person who resides and did reside, and 

was domiciled, in Texas at all relevant times. ShaTorry Newman was Torry Lamont 

Newman’s daughter. ShaTorry Newman sues in her individual capacity as a wrongful death 

beneficiary under Texas law and as a natural heir of the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman. 

13. Plaintiff Tevin Newman is a natural person who resides and did reside, and 

was domiciled, in Texas at all relevant times. Tevin Newman was Torry Lamont Newman’s 

son. Tevin Newman sues in his individual capacity as a wrongful death beneficiary under 

Texas law and as a natural heir of the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman. 

14. Defendant Smith County, Texas (“Smith County” or the “County”) is a Texas 

county. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), Defendant Smith County may 

be served with process by delivering summons and original complaint to its chief executive 

officer, Honorable County Judge Neal Franklin Hale, at 200 E. Ferguson, Suite 100, Tyler, 

Texas 75702, or wherever he may be found. Service of such person is also consistent with 

the manner prescribed by Texas law for serving summons or like process on a county as a 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 4 of 69 PageID #: 4
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 5

Defendant, as set forth in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 17.024(a). 

15. Defendant, Sheriff Larry R. Smith (the “Sheriff”) is and was at all times 

relevant to this action the duly elected Sheriff of Smith County, Texas. He is employed by 

Smith County as Sheriff of the Smith County Sheriff’s Office. He is a county policy maker 

with respect to policies and procedures at the Smith County Jail. He is being sued in his 

individual and official capacity. The Sheriff is and was, at all relevant times responsible for 

creating, adopting, approving, ratifying, maintaining, and enforcing the rules, regulations, 

policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs of the Smith County Sheriff’s Office and the 

Smith County Jail. The Sheriff at all relevant times acted under color of State law. He may be 

served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s Office located at 227 N. Spring Avenue, 

Tyler, Texas 75702. 

16. Defendant John Shoemaker (“Shoemaker”) is the Lieutenant Jailer at the 

Smith County Jail. Defendant Shoemaker at all relevant times acted under color of State law. 

Defendant Shoemaker may be served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s Office 

located at 227 N. Spring Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 or wherever he may be found. 

17. Defendant Maria Vallejo-Robles (“Vallejo-Robles”) was a jailer and sergeant 

at the Smith County Jail who was in contact with Mr. Newman in the days leading up to Mr. 

Newman’s death. Defendant Vallejo-Robles acted at all relevant times under color of State 

law. Defendant Vallejo-Robles may be served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s 

Office located at 227 N. Spring Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 or wherever she may be found. 

18. Defendant Nicholas Lee Vega (“Vega”) was a jailer at the Smith County Jail 

who was in contact with Mr. Newman in the days leading up to Mr. Newman’s death. 

Defendant Vega acted at all relevant times acted under color of State law. Defendant Vega 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 5 of 69 PageID #: 5
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 6

may be served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s Office located at 227 N. Spring 

Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 or wherever he may be found. 

19. Defendant Norali Velaquez (“Velaquez”) was a jailer at the Smith County Jail 

who was in contact with Mr. Newman in the days leading up to Mr. Newman’s death. 

Defendant Velaquez acted at all relevant times under color of State law. Defendant Velaquez 

may be served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s Office located at 227 N. Spring 

Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 or wherever she may be found. 

20. Defendant Tre Kobe Washington (“Washington”) was a jailer at the Smith 

County Jail who was in contact with Mr. Newman in the days leading up to Mr. Newman’s 

death. Defendant Washington acted at all relevant times under color of State law. Defendant 

Velaquez may be served with process at the Smith County Sheriff’s Office located at 227 N. 

Spring Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75702 or wherever he may be found. 

21. The County is a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the 

County has privatized the provision of healthcare services in the jail, it has a non-delegable 

duty under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide constitutionally adequate care, cannot contract away 

its constitutional obligation, and is legally liable for the challenged deliberately indifferent 

polices, practices, customs, and training implemented by such private contractors. 

22. Defendant Turn Key Health Clinicians, PLLC, (“Turn Key Clinicians”), is a 

private for-profit correctional healthcare corporation based in Oklahoma and doing business 

in Texas. Turn Key Clinicians is considered a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At 

all relevant times Turn Key Clinicians acted pursuant to a contract with Smith County to 

provide necessary medical and mental health services to people confined at the Smith County 

Jail. Turn Key Clinicians was responsible for adopting, implementing and enforcing policies 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 6 of 69 PageID #: 6
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 7

pertaining to medical and mental health care for people confined at the jail. It was responsible 

for ensuring that the care provided to those people met minimum constitutional standards and 

for ensuring that its staff and contractors were adequately trained to provide care that met 

those standards. The entity may be served with process at CT Corporation System located at 

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

23. Defendant Turn Key Health Clinics, PLLC, (“Turn Key Clinics”), is a private 

for-profit correctional healthcare corporation based in Oklahoma and doing business in Texas. 

Turn Key Clinics is considered a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At all relevant 

times Turn Key Clinics acted pursuant to a contract with Smith County to provide necessary 

medical and mental health services to people confined at the Smith County Jail. Turn Key 

Clinics was responsible for adopting, implementing and enforcing policies pertaining to 

medical and mental health care for people confined at the jail. It was responsible for ensuring 

that the care provided to those people met minimum constitutional standards and for ensuring 

that its staff and contractors were adequately trained to provide care that met those standards. 

The entity may be served with process at InCorp Services, Inc. located at 815 Brazos St., Ste. 

500, Austin TX 78701. 

24. Defendants Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC and Turn Key Health Clinicians, 

PLLC, are collectively referred to as “Turn Key” or the “Turn Key Defendants.” 

25. The Turn Key Defendants are proper entities to be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 for their deliberately indifferent policies, practices, habits, customs, procedures, training 

and supervision of staff with respect to the provision of medical care and treatment for 

inmates. Upon entering into contracts or subcontracts to provide medical and/or other services 

to Smith County inmates, Turn Key assumed public functions, acted under color of state law, 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 7 of 69 PageID #: 7
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 8

and is legally responsible to comply with all requirements of the United States Constitution. 

26. Defendant Maria Dimaculanga (“Dimaculanga”), was a citizen of the United 

States and a resident of Texas. Dimaculanga is being sued in her individual capacity and as 

a member of TURN KEY. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Dimaculanga was an agent, 

employee, and/or subcontractor of the Turn Key Defendants, and was responsible for 

providing medical care to Torry Lamont Newman during his detention. At all material times, 

this Defendant was acting under color of state law. Defendant Dimaculanga may be served 

with process wherever they may be found. 

27. Defendant Kelly Nichole Ellis (“Ellis”), was a citizen of the United States and 

a resident of Texas. Ellis is being sued in her individual capacity and as a member of TURN 

KEY. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Ellis was an agent, employee, and/or 

subcontractor of Turn Key Defendants, and was responsible for providing medical care to 

Torry Lamont Newman during his detention. At all material times, this Defendant was acting 

under color of state law. Defendant Ellis may be served with process wherever they may be 

found. 

28. Defendants JOHN DOE SMITH COUNTY JAILERS 1 - 20 are Smith 

County employees working at the Smith County Jail (whom Plaintiff understands to be 

sheriff’s deputies or detention services officers) in the Smith County Sheriff’s Office. Each 

Defendant’s acts or omissions complained of herein arises from his/her conduct while acting 

under color of law, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and 

usages of the State of Texas and/or Smith County. Defendants John Doe Smith County 

Jailers 1 - 20 were legally responsible to follow and implement the policies of the Dallas 

County Sheriff’s Office and the United States Constitution with respect to all matters 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 8 of 69 PageID #: 8
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 9

concerning the care and custody of inmates in the Smith County Jail. Defendants John Doe 

Smith County Jailers 1 - 20 were responsible for ensuring that the custody, safekeeping, 

medical needs, housing, and discharge of all inmates, including Torry Lamont Newman, were 

in compliance with federal and state law, department and agency policies, and rules, 

regulations and related standards of care, including the implementation of the policies, 

procedures, practices, and customs and the acts and omissions challenged by this suit. 

Defendants John Doe Smith County Jailers 1 - 20 are sued in their individual capacities. 

At this time, the identities of these Defendants are known only to their employer, Defendant 

Smith County. 

29. Defendants JOHN DOE MEDICAL PROVIDERS 1 - 5 are employees for 

Turn Key Health Clinics and/or Turn Key Health Clinicians working at the Smith County Jail. 

Each Defendant’s acts or omissions complained of herein arises from his/her conduct, under 

color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the State of 

Texas and/or Smith County. Defendants John Doe Medical Providers 1 - 5 were legally 

responsible to follow and implement the policies of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office and 

the United States Constitution with respect to all matters concerning the medical care and 

treatment of inmates in the Smith County Jail, including Torry Lamont Newman. Defendants 

John Doe Medical Providers 1 - 5 are sued in their individual capacities. At this time, the 

identities of these Defendants are known only to their employer, Turn Key Health Clinics 

and/or Turn Key Health Clinicians. 

Non-Parties

30. Ken Warren (“Warren”) was an inmate at the Smith County Jail being held in 

a detox cell within view of Mr. Newman on the date of Mr. Newman’s death. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 9 of 69 PageID #: 9
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 10

31. Joshua Jenkins (“Jenkins”) is a Texas Ranger who conducted an official 

investigation into the death of Mr. Newman. 

III. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

32. On January 28, 2022, Torry Lamont Newman entered a guilty plea for his third 

DWI, agreeing to a ten (10) year sentence to take accountability for his actions. Following the 

sentencing, Mr. Newman was immediately booked into the Smith County Jail and placed 

under the care and custody of the Smith County Sheriff's Office until his death at the Smith 

County Jail on February 18, 2022. 

33. At the time of his incarceration, Torry Lamont Newman had been dealing with 

long-term asthma since childhood and hypertension for the past ten years. As Mr. Newman 

entered adulthood, his asthma worsened. At the time Mr. Newman entered the Smith County 

Jail, both of these chronic medical conditions were well-managed with prescription 

medications. Mr. Newman's current medical regimen when he entered the Smith County Jail, 

as recommended by his physician to manage his hypertension, involved taking Prednisone 10 

mg tablets every day for 10 days, Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg tablets once daily, and 

Amlodipine Besylate 10 mg once daily. For his long-term asthma, Mr. Newman had been 

instructed to take Montelukast SOD 10 mg tablets once every night and use his Albuterol 

Sulfate 90 mcg and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate inhalers once or twice 

every 4 to 6 hours to manage his chronic asthma. 

34. After Torry Lamont Newman was booked into the jail, he was taken to see the 

jail nurse to be assessed and to fill out a medical questionnaire. At the time Mr. Newman was 

in the care and custody of the Smith County Sheriff's Office, Defendants were aware of his 

chronic medical conditions. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 10 of 69 PageID #: 10
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 11

35. Shortly after Mr. Newman was booked into the Smith County Jail, Defendants 

placed him in a separation/isolation cell from approximately on January 28, 2022, where he 

remained until his passing on February 18, 2022. Throughout this timeframe, Defendants 

neglected in furnishing Mr. Newman with the requisite medical care essential for addressing 

his documented chronic medical issues. Instead, Defendants ignored Mr. Newman’s pleas for 

help. When Defendants finally checked on him, it was too late; Mr. Newman had died. An 

autopsy report from Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences at Dallas and a toxicology 

report from NMS Labs revealed that Mr. Newman was not receiving his prescription 

medication. 

36. Mr. Newman’s death was a direct result of the failure and refusal of 

Defendants Smith County, the Smith County Sheriff, jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, 

Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, John Doe Smith County Jailers 1-20, nurses Dimaculanga 

and Ellis, Turn Key Health Clinicians, PLLC, Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC and John Doe 

Medical Providers 1-5, to give Mr. Newman adequate medical care and failure to administer 

to Mr. Newman his physician-prescribed medications for his known chronic asthma and 

hypertension conditions. Torry Lamont Newman's need for the prescribed long-term 

maintenance treatment for his chronic medical conditions was apparent in the severe 

symptoms he experienced when that treatment was withheld while he pleaded for help in his 

separation cell. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 11 of 69 PageID #: 11
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 12

37. Along with the Defendants’ failure and refusal to provide Torry Lamont 

Newman with adequate medical care for his severe asthma, by administering his prescribed 

Albuterol Sulfate and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate medications, which 

were necessary for Mr. Newman’s long-term maintenance treatment of his known chronic 

medical conditions, the Defendants failed to prevent, or reduce the severe symptoms caused 

by their withdrawal of that treatment, including: heavy sweating, disorientation, shortness of 

breath, chest pain, nausea, panic, anxiety, and elevated stroke level blood pressure. Torry 

Lamont Newman suffered substantial harm from Defendants’ failure and refusal to give him 

adequate medical care that led to his death. 

38. After the severe symptoms began to heavily manifest, the Defendants failed 

and refused to seek emergency medical services for Torry Lamont Newman, or reassign his 

housing to the medical unit of the Smith County Jail, but rather held Torry Lamont Newman 

in a separation cell, where twenty-one days later Torry Lamont Newman was found, cold on 

the floor, bruised, unresponsive and without a pulse. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 12 of 69 PageID #: 12
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 13

IV. NATURE OF THE CASE 

39. This is an action for Constitutional violations and state law personal injuries 

suffered by Decedent, Torry Lamont Newman, as a result of the unreasonable treatment, 

conditions, care, and isolation while incarcerated at the Smith County Jail. Plaintiffs bring 

this action for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants deprived 

decedent of his federally-protected right to be free from unlawful seizure, cruel and unusual 

punishment, and because they denied him due process of law. U.S. CONST. amends. IV, VIII 

and XIV. Pursuant to 42 U.S. C. §1983 and §1985, they are seeking recovery and redress for 

violations of the constitutionally-protected civil rights of Torry Lamont Newman, decedent. 

40. Torry Lamont Newman was convicted and awaiting transfer from the Smith 

County Jail to prison. Therefore, the standard for liability is found under the Eighth 

Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.2 Government officials 

performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages 

2

 The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment pertains to punishment after being 

convicted of a crime. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 13 of 69 PageID #: 13
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 14

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 

of which a reasonable person would have known.3 The administration of medical care to an 

inmate is a discretionary function.4 Therefore, jail officials are not shielded from liability if 

they failed to administer Torry Lamont Newman’s medication for his known chronic medical 

conditions. Mr. Newman had a clearly established constitutional right against cruel and 

unusual punishment.5 Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious illness or injury 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.6

41. The United States Supreme Court has held that a county jail has a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and necessary medical services that meet the 

requirements of the Constitution and interpretive case law.7

 The Supreme Court has further 

held that deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and 

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.8

42. Jail officials violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and 

unusual punishment when their conduct demonstrates deliberate indifference to an inmate’s 

serious medical needs, constituting an “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”9 To be 

tantamount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, prison officials must have acted 

with deliberate indifference to the risk posed.10 The “deliberate indifference” standard 

requires “a showing that the official was subjectively aware of the risk of serious harm to the 

3 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). 4 Id. 

5

 U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 

6 Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006). 7 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-57 (1988) 

8 See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 1066 (1977). 

9 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). 

10 Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 14 of 69 PageID #: 14
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 15

inmate.”11 A prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment unless the 

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. 12 Depriving an 

inmate of medication is deliberate indifference.13 

43. In addition to the claims against jail officers and officials, Plaintiffs plead that 

the general conditions, practices, rules, restrictions, and policies at the Smith County Jail were 

a cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiff further pleads that the facts as stated above raise a 

“conditions-of-confinement” theory of liability under § 1983 and the Due Process Clause.14 

44. To establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Plaintiffs must 

show by the preponderance of the evidence that: (1) an official policy or custom, of which (2) 

a policy maker can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, (3) the policy maker 

was deliberately indifferent; and (4) a constitutional violation whose “moving force” is that 

policy or custom.15 A “policy” can be a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision 

officially adopted and promulgated by the county’s officers. A “custom” is a persistent, 

widespread practice of county’s officials or employees that, although not formally adopted, 

is so common and well-settled that it fairly represents the county’s policy. But to show a 

custom, Plaintiffs must prove that either the county’s governing body or some official with 

policymaking authority knew or should have known about the custom. For example, the 

policy or custom of: refraining from calling EMS, isolating and not medicating chronically ill 

11 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829, 114 S.Ct. 1970. 12 Easter at 463 (5th Cir. 2006). 

13 See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829, 114 S.Ct. 1970. (Although the Eighth Amendment does not mandate a certain level 

of medical care for prisoners, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as imposing a duty on prison officials to “ensure 

that inmates receive adequate ... medical care.”). 

14 Sanchez v. Young County, 956 F.3d 785, 791 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 

(5th Cir. 1996)). 

15 Newbury v. City of Windcrest, 991 F.3d 672, 680 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pineda v. City of Houston, 291 F.3d 325, 

328 (5th Cir. 2002)). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 15 of 69 PageID #: 15
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 16

inmates, denying medical treatment to inmates, and neglecting to provide emergency care.

45. On January 28, 2022, Torry Lamont Newman entered a plea of guilty for his 

third DWI, and agreed to serve a ten (10) year sentence. At the time of his sentencing hearing, 

Mr. Newman, a long-term asthmatic, needed additional medical treatment, as advised by his 

doctor, due to his recent experience of contracting COVID-19 twice. Despite informing the 

Court of doctor's letters cautioning against court attendance and incarceration due to surgeryrelated health concerns, the Court denied Mr. Newman's and his attorney’s request for a twoweek delay and reassured him that his chronic medical needs and health concerns would be 

made known to the jail, as that was standard protocol to inform the jailers of any medical 

concerns, upon entering the Smith County Jail. 

46. There is no dispute that Defendants were aware of Mr. Newman's medical 

needs. Defendant Smith announced in a media interview that the Sheriff’s Office recently 

signed a new inmate health contract with Defendant Turn Key Health Clinics16 and stated, 

“We have a full-time intake nurse, where the inmate comes in by law enforcement, into the 

jail, is booked in, they see the nurse right then, and they do their full medical questionnaire 

that they fill out and assess them at that time”. 17 

KLTV 7 Article: “Smith County Jail signs new contract for inmate medical services” 

47. Furthermore, Defendant Vallejo-Robles admitted during her interview with 

16 Under Sanchez v. Oliver, Defendants Turn Key are “systematically organized to perform the major administrative 

task of providing [medical] care at state facilities” and are not entitled to assert qualified immunity. 995 F.3d 461, 467 

(5th Cir. 2021). 

17 https://www.kltv.com/2021/01/25/smith-county-jail-signs-new-contract-inmate-medical-services/

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 16 of 69 PageID #: 16
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 17

Texas Ranger Jenkins that Mr. Newman only spoke to the staff when it was time for him to 

take his medication or to eat. See Ex. A: Page 12: February 18, 2022 Texas DPS Ranger 

Investigation Report. Plaintiffs have requested Mr. Newman’s medical records but they have 

not been produced. 

February 18, 2022 Texas Ranger Report, pg. 12. 

48. From approximately January 28, 2022 until February 18, 2022, Defendants, 

persons at the Smith County Jail in charge of providing medical care to Torry Lamont 

Newman, both knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of severe injury or death to Mr. 

Newman, by ignoring his complaints, ignoring his doctor's written directives, refusing to treat 

him, and intentionally failing to follow the recommended and prescribed treatment for Mr. 

Newman’s serious asthma and cardiovascular disorder, known chronic medical conditions. 

Such conduct violated well-established federal law of which a reasonable person in 

Defendants' position would have known.18

49. Defendants demonstrated deliberate or callous indifference to Mr. Newman’s 

serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and injury, 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. All Defendants acted 

under color of state law. 

50. From the judge to the bailiff, to the medical personnel, and to the jailers, 

Defendants failed to implement the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to provide 

18 See, e.g., Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1979). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 17 of 69 PageID #: 17
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 18

constitutionally adequate mental health treatment and medical services to Torry Lamont 

Newman during his incarceration in the Smith County Jail. Furthermore, Defendants 

implemented policies, procedures, and practices that interfered with or prevented Torry 

Lamont Newman from receiving the necessary mental health treatment and medical services. 

Despite being aware of Mr. Newman's requirement for his prescription medications to manage 

his chronic medical conditions, Defendants deliberately withheld them. 

51. The jail staff unmistakably heard his pleas for medication and discomfort 

during the last few hours of his life as he struggled with asthma. Shockingly, they allowed 

him to suffocate a mere 10 feet from a fully staffed booking desk and within a high-traffic 

area. Defendants failed to medically monitor Mr. Newman in accordance with Texas Jail 

Standards and intentionally failed or refused to provide adequate medical treatment that was 

necessary for his known chronic medical conditions. 

52. As a direct result of the policies, practices, customs and procedures at the 

Smith County Jail, decedent was deprived of his constitutional rights as guaranteed to him by 

the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Smith County and Smith 

County Sheriff Smith violated Torry Lamont Newman’s civil rights pursuant to the Eighth 

Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from 

cruel and unusual punishment, to receive proper medical care, and to receive adequate medical 

care, while incarcerated and under the custody and control of Smith County, at the Smith 

County Jail under the supervision and control of the Smith County Sheriff, Smith County 

jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, John Doe Smith 

County Jailers 1-20 and Smith County Jail’s Contracted Medical Providers, Turn Key Health 

Clinicians, PLLC and/or Turn Key Health Clinics, PLLC, Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 18 of 69 PageID #: 18
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 19

and/or John Doe Medical Providers 1-5. 

53. Defendant jailers acting in the course and scope of their employment with the 

County, and nurses and medical providers acting in the course and scope of their employment 

with the County and/or Turn Key, acting under color of state law, unjustifiably isolated and 

failed to medically treat the decedent until he died. Said actions were taken under 

circumstances where no reasonable nurse, medical provider or jailer would have done so. 

Under long established law on unlawful seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and due 

process, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified or other immunity for these 

actions. The unconstitutional and tortious acts of the individual defendants were not isolated 

incidents. Rather these acts were consistent with a custom, pattern and practice at the Smith 

County Jail of failing to properly train and supervise its nurses and jailers in these critical care 

taking responsibilities and failing to respond to the decedent's screams for help. 

54. Thus, beyond compensating Plaintiffs for their continuing injuries, this action 

seeks to redress the unlawful municipal customs, policies, patterns and practices pursuant to 

which defendants, acting under color of law both independently and in concert, violated the 

decedent's clearly established rights as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment 

to the United States Constitution. 

55. As a result of Defendants’ tortious and unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiffs 

seek relief for the defendants’ violation of decedent's rights secured by the Civil Rights Act 

of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and of the rights secured under the laws of the State of Texas. 

Plaintiffs seek damages, compensatory and punitive, affirmative and equitable relief, an 

award of costs and attorney’s fees, and for such other and further relief as this court deems 

equitable and just. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 19 of 69 PageID #: 19
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 20

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Allegations 

56. Plaintiffs provide in the factual allegations sections below the general substance 

of certain factual allegations. Plaintiffs do not intend that those sections provide in detail, or 

necessarily in chronological order, any or all allegations. Rather, Plaintiffs intend that those 

sections provide Defendants sufficient fair notice of the general nature and substance of 

Plaintiffs’ allegations, and further demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ claim(s) have facial 

plausibility. Whenever Plaintiffs plead factual allegations “upon information and belief,” 

Plaintiffs are pleading that the specified factual contentions have evidentiary support or will 

likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or 

discovery. Plaintiffs also plead factual allegations discovered during discovery limited to the 

qualified immunity of Defendants. 

57. This case arises from the deliberate indifference and denial of medical and 

mental health care needed by Torry Lamont Newman while detained in the Smith County Jail. 

Torry Lamont Newman had known chronic medical conditions which required prescription 

medication, medical care, supervision, and monitoring. These conditions were known to the 

County, Sheriff, jailers, jail staff, Turn Key, and medical staff. 

B. General Factual Allegations 

58. This is a case of a tragic denial of medical care desperately needed by Torry 

Lamont Newman, a Smith County inmate. J ailers and medical staff ignored Mr. Newman’s 

pleas for help. Torry Lamont Newman sat in a jail cell suffering from a life-threatening critical 

condition that was known to jailers, supervisors and jail medical staff. 

59. Torry Lamont Newman was born in Texas and was the child of Joyce Newman. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 20 of 69 PageID #: 20
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 21

He is survived by his wife, mother, and each and every one of his children. 

60. On January 28, 2022, Torry Lamont Newman pled guilty to his third DWI, and 

agreed to serve a ten (10) year sentence, in an effort to take personal responsibility for his 

actions. See Ex. B: 2022-01-27 Plea and Sentencing Hearing - Torry Newman Volume 2. 

61. At the time of his incarceration, Torry Lamont Newman was 46 years old. He 

was 5’7” tall and weighed approximately 160 pounds. See Ex. C: Autopsy of Torry Newman. 

He loved his wife, mother, children, extended family, and friends; he had every intention of 

securing release from jail and resuming his family life and embarking on a new chapter 

awaiting him upon his release. 

62. During the sentencing hearing, Mr. Newman informed the Court that he had 

recently recovered from COVID-19 and about his ongoing asthma concerns. He requested a 

one-week delay before surrendering and explained his need for further medical examination 

as recommended by his doctor, and mentioned having contracted COVID-19 twice. See Ex. 

D: Page 1, UT Health East Texas Physicians Medical Record – January 12, 2022. Although 

Mr. Newman had recently recovered from COVID-19 and been cleared from isolation, Dr. 

Hardy, Mr. Newman’s treating physician, recommended that he receive a vaccination one 

month after recovering and a second vaccination three weeks later. See Ex. E: UT Health East 

Texas, Physician’s Note – January 12, 2022. Mr. Newman received his first vaccination on 

January 27, 2022. However, he was unable to receive his second vaccination on February 17, 

2022, the recommended date for his second vaccination, because he was incarcerated at that 

time. See Ex. F: Torry Newman Covid-19 Vaccination Record Card. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 21 of 69 PageID #: 21
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 22

 UT Health East Texas Physicians – January 12, 2022

UT Health East Texas, Physician’s Note – January 12, 2022 

Torry Newman COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card 

63. Mr. Ellis, Mr. Newman's attorney, emphasized the severity of Newman's asthma 

and explained that nasal surgery six months ago had led to multiple hearing postponements. 

Despite providing doctor's letters advising against attending court and going to jail due to 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 22 of 69 PageID #: 22
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 23

health concerns related to the surgery, the Court denied Newman's request for any type of 

delay, stating that the Court had formally assessed his sentence. The Court explained that once 

a defendant with a medical condition is sentenced and remanded into custody, the 

responsibility lies with the medical professionals at the jail. The bailiff interjected, assuring 

Newman that upon his arrival at the jail, he could consult with medical staff, and the Court 

instructed the bailiff to ensure that the medical staff was informed. The Court concluded by 

stating that the jail personnel would take care of Mr. Newman. 

64. At the time of Mr. Newman's doctor's visit, his asthma and hypertension were 

stable, and his doctor advised him to continue with his current medication regimen as part of 

his ongoing treatment plan. See Ex. D: Page 2-3, UT Health East Texas Physicians Medical 

Record – January 12, 2022. 

Page 2-3, UT Health East Texas Physicians Medical Records – January 12, 2022. 

65. Once a detainee, like Mr. Newman, who had a known, serious medical condition, 

had been formally sentenced and remanded to the custody of the Jail, it was the Jail’s and 

medical staff’s responsibility to ensure that Mr. Newman was evaluated for any medical 

conditions and received proper medical care. The Jail and medical staff had the responsibility 

to ensure that Mr. Newman received proper medical care by immediately completing a 

medical screening form and maintaining an accurate medical record with a timeline of medical 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 23 of 69 PageID #: 23
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 24

services, nursing notes, physician orders, and records of medication administrations.19

Smith County Jail Inspection Report 

66. From day one the health care workers in the jail understood that Mr. Newman 

had a history of asthma and relied on prescribed medications like Albuterol Sulfate, and 

Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate. 

Transcript of Newman Plea and Sentencing Hearing: Page 20: 10-12. 

Transcript of Newman Plea and Sentencing Hearing: Page 20: 25. 

19 Smith County Jail Inspection Report: Inmate Death Reporting Form 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 24 of 69 PageID #: 24
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 25

Transcript of Newman Plea and Sentencing Hearing: Pages 22:15-23:1. 

Transcript of Newman Plea and Sentencing Hearing: Page 22: 4-9. 

Transcript of Newman Plea and Sentencing Hearing: Pages 23:9-10. 

67. During the time that Torry Lamont Newman was in Smith County Jail, the Jail 

was inadequately staffed with jailers that had not received the required training to heed to 

calls for a doctor or a life-threatening critical illness. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 25 of 69 PageID #: 25
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 26

68. It is clear that only after Torry Lamont Newman suffered for hours and died lying 

naked on the floor in a separation cell, that a jailer checked on him, but it was too late. 

Defendants’ deliberate indifference and objective unreasonableness caused Torry Lamont 

Newman’s unnecessary death. Mr. Newman was essentially tortured by Defendants’ failure 

and refusal to provide him with his prescribed medications. 

69. Defendant Vega stated that Mr. Newman’s body was cold to the touch when he 

discovered his body. 

Texas DPS Ranger Investigation Report 

70. Texas law requires that the County have Torry Lamont Newman’s death 

investigated by an outside agency. Texas Rangers20 conducted an investigation into the death 

of Mr. Newman. According to the Custodial Death Report, Torry Lamont Newman was 

“discovered by jail staff in his separation cell unresponsive” around 5:10 A.M on February 

18, 2022. See Ex. A: Page 3: February 18, 2022 Texas DPS Ranger Investigation Report. 

February 18, 2022 Texas Ranger Report, pg. 3.

20 The purpose of a Texas Rangers investigation regarding a custodial death, such as the decedent’s, is to determine 

whether there was any criminal responsibility for what occurred. Texas Rangers do not determine whether there is 

civil liability for violation of a person’s constitutional rights, such as that alleged in this case. Therefore, the Texas 

Rangers’ determination as to whether to turn the case over to a grand jury and recommend prosecution does not 

determine whether Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the decedent’s death. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 26 of 69 PageID #: 26
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 27

71. After Mr. Newman’s death, a toxicology report revealed that Mr. Newman had 

not been receiving his asthma medications. While Amlodipine and Metoprolol were detected, 

the test did not yield any positive findings of Metoprolol nor Budesonide. See Ex. G: NMS 

Labs Toxicology Report. 

72. It was known from the inception of Mr. Newman’s incarceration that he suffered 

from asthma and cardiovascular disease. Ultimately, the pathologist determined that the 

primary cause of his death was from complications associated with asthma. See Ex. C: 

Autopsy of Torry Newman.

73. Torry Lamont Newman died because: (1) the Defendants failed and refused to 

administer his prescribed medications, (2) Defendants failed and refused to treat him for his 

asthma disease, (3) Defendants jail staff and medical providers ignored his medical 

complaints, (4) Defendants failed and refused to medically monitor him in accordance with 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 27 of 69 PageID #: 27
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 28

Texas Jail Standards, (5) Defendants intentionally failed and refused to provide adequate 

medical treatment that was necessary for his known chronic medical conditions, and (6) 

Defendants had wanton disregard and deliberate indifference for Torry Lamont Newman’s 

serious medical needs, by delaying medically necessary emergency medical treatment after 

Mr. Newman’s continual pleas for help, resulting in Torry Lamont Newman’s death. 

74. His surviving mother and heirs, LaTosha Newman, Joyce Newman, NaTori 

Newman, Tevin Newman, ShaTorry Newman, and Brian Newman, as Independent 

Administrator the Estate of Torry Lamont Newman bring this action seeking fair 

compensation, appropriate training with the hope that they can prevent other inmates and 

prisoners at the Smith County Jail from suffering similar excruciating injuries and/or death, 

and acknowledgment from the Sheriff that their son died as a result of Smith County and the 

Smith County Sheriff’s decision making, and policies. 

C. Torry Lamont Newman’s Incarceration and Death in the Smith County Jail

75. Torry Lamont Newman was booked into the Smith County Jail on January 28, 

2022 and began his sentence. 

76. Prior to being booked into the Smith County Jail, Mr. Newman was treated by 

his physician for his asthma and high blood pressure. His asthma and cardiovascular diseases 

were under control at this time. 

77. For some unknown reason, Torry Lamont Newman’s clothes were taken from 

him and he was moved to a single person separation cell and was being housed by himself, 

also known as “Detox 2”, which is located on the first floor, in the jail’s booking area. See 

Ex. A: Page 3: February 18, 2022 Texas DPS Ranger Investigation Report. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 28 of 69 PageID #: 28
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 29

February 18, 2022 Texas Ranger Report, pg. 3.

78. Torry Lamont Newman, which on information and belief, was moved to Detox 

2 around January 28, 2022 and kept there until his death on February 18, 2022. During this 

period, Mr. Newman experienced severe symptoms related to Defendants’ failure and refusal 

to provide him with adequate medical treatment that was necessary for his known chronic 

medical conditions, including shortness of breath, heavy chest pain, and disorientation. 

79. Inmate Warren was in a holding cell next to Mr. Newman on February 18, 2022. 

During this time, he heard cries and screams coming from Mr. Newman’s cell that kept him 

from being able to sleep. For hours, Mr. Newman continuously beat on the glass window 

stating he needed water. Warren stated Mr. Newman beat on the window and begged for water 

for at least one hour and became silent. Two hours passed and a jailer stated they needed to 

check on Mr. Newman because his cell was quiet. 

80. Torry Lamont Newman did not receive constitutionally required emergency 

medical services, care, or treatment from Smith County, the Sheriff, jailers Shoemaker, 

Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, John Doe Smith County Jailers 1-20, Turn 

Key, Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, and John Does Medical Providers 1-5 from January 

28, 2022 until he was found unresponsive without a pulse. On February 18, 2022, Torry 

Lamont Newman was found nude and unresponsive in his jail cell.

81. Texas Administrative Code Rule §275.1 requires Regular Observation be 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 29 of 69 PageID #: 29
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 30

performed at least every 30 minutes in areas where inmates are known to be assaultive, 

potentially suicidal, mentally ill, or who have demonstrated bizarre behavior while confined. 

There shall be a two-way voice communication capability between inmates and jailers, 

licensed peace officers, bailiffs, and designated staff at all times, and closed-circuit television 

may not be used in lieu of the required personal observation. 

82. Torry Lamont Newman was not, but should have been supervised face to face 

every thirty minutes by the jailers, licensed peace officers, bailiffs, or designated staff, as a 

result of his known and documented mental health status, and at least once an hour by jail 

medical personnel due to his asthma and medical conditions; however, Mr. Newman was left 

unsupervised for hours at times. See Ex. A: Page 10, February 18, 2022 Texas DPS Ranger 

Investigation Report 

February 18, 2022 Texas Ranger Report, pg. 10.

D. Torry Lamont Newman’s Prescription Medication 

83. Torry Lamont Newman, as mentioned above, had been prescribed 25 milligrams 

of Metoprolol Tartrate to be taken once daily, 10 milligrams of Prednisone to be taken once 

daily, 10 milligrams of Montelukast to be taken once every night, 10 milligrams of 

Amlodipine Besylate to be taken once daily, and two Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and 

Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate inhalers. This medication had been prescribed by his 

physician to treat his severe asthma and cardiovascular disorder for over a decade. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 30 of 69 PageID #: 30
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 31

E. Torry Lamont Newman’s Experience at the Smith County Jail 

84. Despite suffering from severe symptoms, not a single medical staff member or 

Smith County personnel appropriately addressed Torry Lamont Newman's medication-related 

challenges during his time in Detox 2. This was evident as they failed to conduct regular 

mental status exams while Mr. Newman was in a separation cell. 

85. Smith County and Smith County jail medical staff members failed to adequately 

interview, access, or review Mr. Newman’s medical records. The Jail medical staff members 

failed to administer proper mental health or physical evaluations. The Jail medical staff 

members failed to supervise and regularly check Mr. Newman’s vital signs when he was under 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 31 of 69 PageID #: 31
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 32

a mental health status watch in Detox 2. The Jail medical staff members failed to adequately 

review Mr. Newman’s chart or medical history, despite their awareness of Mr. Newman’s 

mental status while he was in Detox 2, suffering from asthma attacks. 

86. The Jail medical staff members also failed to properly monitor Torry Lamont 

Newman. Despite Mr. Newman’s distress, not one of the Jail medical staff members 

consulted any of Mr. Newman’s primary treating physicians or sought his medical history and 

never conducted a mental health status exam, or sent Mr. Newman to the Hospital. 

87. While in a solitary confinement cell, Torry Lamont Newman was locked in his 

single cell and was away from the other inmates and unable to make phone calls or use the 

showers without a jailer’s consent. 

88. Once housed in the solitary confinement cell, Torry Lamont Newman continued 

to suffer from severe, obvious, and terrifying symptoms from not receiving his long-term 

maintenance treatment for his chronic medical conditions, until his death. Jail medical staff 

members withheld the Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, Amlodipine Besylate, 

Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate medications from Mr. 

Newman and failed to timely contact Mr. Newman’s primary physicians, before commencing 

the cessation of the lawfully prescribed Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, 

Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate 

Dihydrate. 

F. Failure to Train or Inadequate Training 

89. Ultimately the training of all jail staff is the responsibility of Sheriff Smith. The 

training provided by Smith County is so inadequate as to constitute a failure to train. Members 

of the jail staff are not instructed on differentiating between a mental health condition, asthma 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 32 of 69 PageID #: 32
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 33

conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and side effects and/or symptoms of an inmate not 

receiving their necessary medications. Moreover, the treatment offered by staff is the same 

for any inmate that is mentally incoherent regardless of the cause of their incoherency. While 

jail staff will undoubtedly acknowledge that they are not equipped to deal with an inmate 

having worsening chronic medical conditions as a result of the abrupt disruption of the 

medications that his body relied upon to treat his asthma, they are also not trained to assess 

such symptoms and seek medical treatment. Mr. Newman should have been transported to a 

hospital, where physicians and mental health providers could have treated him. Instead, he 

was observed until death in a separation cell. This improper or inadequate training is 

deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of inmates such as Torry Lamont Newman and 

was a direct cause of his death. 

G. Policies, Practices and Culpable Conduct 

90. Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, Texas, and any John Doe policy makers 

were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Torry Lamont Newman by failing 

to train staff and implement jail policies, practices, customs and usages that adequately 

addressed the obvious and known health and safety risks to inmates with serious chronic 

medical conditions entering the Jail while taking prescribed medications. This includes the 

likelihood that a person with such conditions would experience severe symptoms, substantial 

harm, and death when his prescribed medications were withheld, without proper medical 

treatment being available. 

91. Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, and any John Doe policymakers acted 

recklessly, wantonly, willfully, knowingly, intentionally and with deliberate indifference to 

the serious medical needs of Torry Lamont Newman, when Mr. Newman began 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 33 of 69 PageID #: 33
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 34

demonstrating severe symptoms upon the abrupt cessation of the long term Metoprolol 

Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide 

and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate which Mr. Newman needed for his severe asthma and 

cardiovascular disorder. 

92. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, before his death 

Torry Lamont Newman suffered severe emotional distress, pain, suffering, and extreme and 

horrifying mental distress. 

93. As a further direct and proximate result of Torry Lamont Newman’s wrongful 

death, Latosha Newman, Joyce Newman, his survivors and/or heirs have suffered permanent 

damages, including but not limited to, the loss of his support, services, and society, including 

loss of companionship, care, assistance, attention, protection, advice, guidance, counsel, 

instruction, training, and education, as well as the loss of prospective inheritance. 

94. As a further direct and proximate result of Torry Lamont Newman’s wrongful 

death, Torry Lamont Newman’s survivors, next of kin and/or heirs have suffered permanent 

damages, including, but not limited to, grief, depression, and severe emotional distress. The 

Estate of Torry Lamont Newman has incurred funeral bills. 

95. Defendants’ violations of Torry Lamont Newman’s constitutional rights resulted 

from a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of deliberate indifference to the serious medical 

needs of inmates at the direction and encouragement of the policymakers. 

96. Plaintiffs assert that the death of Torry Lamont Newman was the result of the 

actions or failures to act of Defendants Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, Texas, and any 

John Doe Policymakers. The death and harm suffered was the result of Defendants’ conduct 

motivated by evil intent, or done recklessly or with deliberate and callous indifference to the 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 34 of 69 PageID #: 34
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 35

federally protected rights of Torry Lamont Newman. 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 

H. Smith County’s Monell and Sheriff Smith’s Supervisory Liability

97. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference. 

98. Plaintiffs set forth in this section of the pleading additional facts and allegations 

supporting liability claims against Smith County pursuant to Monell v. Department of Soc. 

Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). All facts asserted in this pleading relating to policies, practices, 

customs, and/or culpable conduct of the County support such Monell liability claims. Such 

liability arises due to the action and/or inaction of the chief policymaker(s) for Smith County 

regarding jail policies, practices, customs, and/or culpable conduct. Such policies, practices, 

customs, and/or culpable conduct alleged in this pleading, individually and/or working 

together, and whether supporting episodic acts and omission and/or conditions of confinement 

claims, were moving forces behind and caused the constitutional violations, and damages and 

death, referenced herein. These policies, practices, customs, and/or culpable conduct are pled 

individually and alternatively. 

99. The County initiated a practice of diverting emergency care situations as a costsaving measure, either to Turn Key or through alternative means, before a final decision was 

made on whether an inmate required transfer to an emergency care hospital. When 

announcing the recent signing of a new inmate contract with Turn Key Health Clinics, Smith 

County Sheriff Larry Smith mentioned that although the County was paying a slightly higher 

amount, savings would be realized in other areas. Specifically, he stated, "We’ve cut down 

on the number of inmates that go to the emergency room, which was a big deal, a big price 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 35 of 69 PageID #: 35
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 36

tag."21 This delay became apparent in the County's newspaper announcement, where they 

revealed a significant reduction in emergency care calls after engaging Turn Key. This 

reduction could only be attributed to a decrease in actual emergency situations, which is 

unlikely, or the diversion of medical care to Turn Key or another alternative before a decision 

was made on the necessity of hospitalization. This practice was consistently applied in each 

instance, irrespective of the severity of the required treatment and resulted in significant 

delays in emergency treatment for medical cost saving reasons. 

100. Smith County had a non-delegable duty to provide health care that was 

constitutionally sufficient.22 The chief policymaker for the jail was Sheriff Larry R. Smith at 

all relevant times and thus his policies are attributable to Defendant Smith County and on 

information and belief said policies were also endorsed by Smith County Judge Nathaniel 

Moran as well as the Smith County Commissioner’s Court. 

101. The County knew, when the County incarcerated the decedent, that their 

personnel, policies, practices, customs and/or culpable conduct were such that they could not 

meet the required constitutional obligations to provide medical and mental health treatment 

to, and protect, the decedent. The County made decisions about policies and practices which 

it implemented through its Commissioner’s Court, its Sheriff, its jail administrator, and/or 

through such widespread practice and/or custom that such practice and/or custom became the 

policy of the Commissioner’s Court as it related to its jail including issues related to staffing 

and budgets. 

102. On information and belief Defendants Turn Key, who contracted with Smith 

21 https://www.kltv.com/2021/01/25/smith-county-jail-signs-new-contract-inmate-medical-services/ 22 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-57 (1988) 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 36 of 69 PageID #: 36
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 37

County, and/or Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, who contracted with and/or were 

employed by Turn Key to provide detainee/inmate medical services, engaged in an ongoing 

practice of ignoring detainee/inmate medical needs. The conduct of Defendants Turn Key 

and/or Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis was well known to Smith County policymakers. 

Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis rarely made personal contact with detainee/inmates who 

requested medical services 

103. Smith County policymakers were aware at all times relevant that the services 

provided by Defendants Turn Key and/or Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis would be 

undertaken by either (1) registered nurse Defendant Dimaculanga or (2) registered nurse 

Defendant Ellis. 

104. Smith County policymakers at all times relevant were aware that Defendants 

Turn Key and/or Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis were without sufficient staff to meet the 

medical needs of the detainee/inmate population of its jail. 

105. As set out in the factual allegations above, Defendant Sheriff Larry Smith was 

aware of the substandard medical care that was being provided to the inmates/detainees in his 

jail yet failed to take action to remedy said substandard medical care. 

106. After Mr. Newman’s death, Smith County policymakers made no admission of 

error and vehemently defended themselves against allegations of wrongdoing and continue to 

do so to this day. 

107. Defendants Turn Key was organized by Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, to 

provide medical health services to Texas jails that are under a legal requirement to provide 

medical care to inmates. Defendants Turn Key are private for-profit correctional healthcare 

companies based in Oklahoma and doing business in Texas, whose members consist, either 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 37 of 69 PageID #: 37
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 38

directly or derivatively, of Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis. 

108. The failures of Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis and jail staff preceded Mr. 

Newman’s death. A Texas Jail Standards Commission inspection report related to an 

inspection of the Smith County Jail that occurred February 22, 2022, noted several 

deficiencies in June 2021 through the date of the inspection, which revealed the jail failed to 

comply with the jail standards for supervision of inmates and failed to complete the Screening 

Form for Suicide and Medical/Mental/Developmental Impairments of inmates in its entirety. 

See Ex. H: February 18, 2022 Smith County Jail Inspection Report and Death in Custody 

Report. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 38 of 69 PageID #: 38
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 39

109. Federal courts have defined a “serious medical need” as one so obvious that even 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 39 of 69 PageID #: 39
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 40

a lay person would easily recognize necessity for doctor’s attention.23 In this case there is no 

doubt that the jail staff (and even detainees and inmates) knew that Mr. Newman was suffering 

from a serious medical condition. Based on information and belief, Smith County jailers 

were, as a matter of policy, instructed not to call for emergency treatment of detainee/inmate’s 

suffering from obvious serious medical conditions without medical staff approval. 

I. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendant Smith County)

110. Plaintiff incorporates by reference “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

herein. 

111. The actions and/or omissions of Defendant Smith County were taken with 

deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman’s known constitutional rights not to be deprived of 

life or liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, 

omissions and/or deprivations of Defendant Smith County were made with deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Newman’s serious medical needs. 

112. Defendant Smith County's actions and/or omissions resulted in the violation of 

Mr. Newman's constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. 

Newman had a right to be safe and the right to have timely access to necessary and appropriate 

medical evaluation and/or treatment. Defendant Smith County's failures include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

a. failure to take reasonable or appropriate precautions to prevent Mr. 

Newman's death; 

b. failure to heed to Mr. Newman’s request for his medications, and for a 

doctor and for hospital treatment24

23 See Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 169 (D.N.H. 1977) 24 It is without issue that the Smith County Jail has no capability to provide emergency or critical health care. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 40 of 69 PageID #: 40
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 41

c. failure to provide appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment to Mr. 

Newman to address his known, obvious medical condition(s); 

d. failure to provide adequately trained medical personnel; 

e. failure to transport Mr. Newman to an appropriate medical facility or health 

care provider for further medical evaluation and/or treatment; and 

f. instituting a policy that prevented Mr. Newman from being timely 

transported to an appropriate medical facility or health care provider for 

further medical evaluation and/or treatment of his serious medical 

condition. 

113. All of Defendant Smith County's actions and/or omissions were in deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Newman's constitutional rights. 

J. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendant Larry R. Smith, Individually) 

114. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

herein. 

115. The actions and/or omissions of Defendant Smith were taken with deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Newman’s known constitutional rights not to be deprived of life or liberty 

without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, omissions and/or 

deprivations of Defendant Smith were made with deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman’s 

serious medical needs. 

116. Defendant Smith’s actions and/or omissions resulted in the violation of Mr. 

Newman's Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional right to due process. While incarcerated, 

Mr. Newman had a right to be safe and the right to have timely access to necessary and 

appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment. Defendant Smith’s failures include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

a. failure to take reasonable or appropriate precautions to prevent Mr. 

Newman's death; 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 41 of 69 PageID #: 41
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 42

b. failure to provide appropriate medical evaluation of Mr. Newman’s known, 

obvious medical conditions; 

c. failure to provide treatment to Mr. Newman to address his known, obvious 

medical condition(s); 

d. failure to provide adequately trained medical personnel; 

e. failure to transport Mr. Newman to an appropriate medical facility or health 

care provider for further medical evaluation and/or treatment; and 

f. instituting a policy that prevented Mr. Newman from being timely 

transported to an appropriate medical facility or health care provider for 

further medical evaluation and/or treatment of his serious medical 

condition. 

K. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendants TURN KEY)

117. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

herein. 

118. The actions and/or omissions of Defendants Turn Key were taken under color of 

state law pursuant to the authority delegated by Smith County and with deliberate indifference 

to the known Constitutional right of Mr. Newman to not be deprived of life or liberty without 

due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, omissions and/or 

deprivations of Defendants Turn Key were made with deliberate indifference to Mr. 

Newman’s serious medical needs. 

119. Defendants Turn Key's failures include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. failure to take reasonable or appropriate precautions to prevent Mr. 

Newman's death; 

b. failure to provide appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment to Mr. 

Newman to address his known, obvious medical condition(s); 

c. failure to transport Mr. Newman to an appropriate medical facility or health 

care provider for further medical evaluation and/or treatment; and 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 42 of 69 PageID #: 42
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 43

d. failure to provide adequate training and supervision for nurses Dimaculanga 

and Ellis. 

L. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendant Dimaculanga)

120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

herein. 

121. The actions and/or omissions of Defendant Dimaculanga were taken under color 

of state law pursuant to the authority delegated by Smith County and with deliberate 

indifference to the known constitutional right of Mr. Newman to not be deprived of life or 

liberty without due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, 

omissions and/or deprivations by Defendant Dimaculanga were made with deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Newman's serious medical needs. 

122. Defendant Dimaculanga's failures include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. failure to take reasonable or appropriate precautions to prevent Mr. 

Newman's death; 

b. failure to provide appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment to Mr. 

Newman to address his known, obvious medical condition(s); 

c. failure to transport Mr. Newman to an appropriate medical facility or health 

care provider for further medical evaluation and/or treatment; and 

d. adhering to a policy that prevented Mr. Newman from being timely 

transported to an appropriate medical facility or health care provider for 

further medical evaluation and/or treatment of his serious medical 

condition. 

123. All of Defendant Dimaculanga's actions and/or omissions were taken in 

deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman's constitutional rights. 

M. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendant Ellis)

124. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 43 of 69 PageID #: 43
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 44

herein. 

125. The actions and/or omissions of Defendant Ellis were taken under color of state 

law pursuant to the authority delegated by Smith County and with deliberate indifference to 

the known constitutional right of Mr. Newman to not be deprived of life or liberty without 

due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, omissions and/or 

deprivations by Defendant Ellis were made with deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman's 

serious medical needs. 

126. Defendant Ellis's failures include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. failure to take reasonable or appropriate precautions to prevent Mr. 

Newman's death; 

b. failure to provide appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment to Mr. 

Newman to address his known, obvious medical condition(s); 

c. failure to transport Mr. Newman to an appropriate medical facility or health 

care provider for further medical evaluation and/or treatment; and 

d. adhering to a policy that prevented Mr. Newman from being timely 

transported to an appropriate medical facility or health care provider for 

further medical evaluation and/or treatment of his serious medical 

condition. 

127. All of Defendant Ellis's actions and/or omissions were taken in deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Newman's constitutional rights. 

N. Federal Constitutional Violations (as to Defendants Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, 

Vega, Velaquez, and Washington)

128. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the “Factual Allegations” above as if restated 

herein. 

129. The actions and/or omissions of Defendants Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, 

Velaquez, and Washington were taken under color of state law and with deliberate 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 44 of 69 PageID #: 44
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 45

indifference to the known constitutional right of Mr. Newman to not be deprived of life or 

liberty without due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such actions, 

omissions and/or deprivations by Defendants Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, 

and Washington were made with deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman's serious medical 

needs. 

130. Defendants Shoemaker’s, Vallejo-Robles’s, Vega’s, Velaquez’s, and 

Washington’s failures include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. failure to provide for the transport of Mr. Newman to an appropriate 

medical facility or health care provider for further medical evaluation and/or 

treatment; and 

b. adhering to a policy that prevented Mr. Newman from being timely 

transported to an appropriate medical facility or health care provider for 

further medical evaluation and/or treatment of his serious medical 

condition. 

131. All of Defendants Shoemaker’s, Vallejo-Robles’s, Vega’s, Velaquez’s, and 

Washington’s actions and/or omissions were taken in deliberate indifference to Mr. Newman's 

constitutional rights. 

132. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that using a 

State’s wrongful death and survival statutes creates an effective remedy for civil rights claims 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.25 Therefore, Plaintiffs individually, representatives of the Estate 

of Mr. Newman and as the heirs of Mr. Newman, seek all remedies and damages available 

under Texas and federal law, including but not necessarily limited to the Texas wrongful death 

25 See Pluet v. Frasier,355 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Rhyne,973 F.2d at 390–91; Brazier v. Cherry,293 F.2d 

401, 409 (5th Cir.1961)) (“Standing under the Civil Rights Statutes is guided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which provides 

that state common law is used to fill the gaps in administration of civil rights suits. Therefore, a party must have 

standing under the state wrongful death or survival statutes to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988.” 

(citations omitted)); Grandstaff v. City of Borger, Tex.,767 F.2d 161, 172 (5th Cir.1985). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 45 of 69 PageID #: 45
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 46

statute, the Texas survival statute, the Texas Constitution, common law, and all related and/or 

supporting case law. If Mr. Newman had lived, he would have been entitled to bring a 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action and obtain remedies and damages provided by Texas and federal law. 

Therefore, Mr. Newman’s estate and/or his heirs at law suffered the following damages, for 

which they seek recovery from all Defendants: 

a. Mr. Newman’s conscious physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish; 

b. Mr. Newman’s medical expenses; 

c. Mr. Newman’s funeral expenses; and 

d. Punitive damages. 

133. Individual Plaintiffs, on their own behalf, seek damages for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses proximately caused by Mr. Newman's death by the reckless disregard to the safety 

and well-being of inmates and the deliberate indifference of all Defendants, their agents, employees, 

and subcontractors, including mental anguish resulting from destruction of the husband-wife, sonmother, father-daughter, father-son relationship as to each individual Plaintiff including but not 

limited to the following: 

a. loss of services that they would have received from Mr. Newman;

b. past physical pain, mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by them 

resulting from and caused by Mr. Newman's death; 

c. future physical pain, mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by them 

resulting from and caused by Mr. Newman's death; 

d. loss of companionship, society, joy, solace, company and advice that they would 

have received from Mr. Newman; and 

e. exemplary/punitive damages.

134. Exemplary/punitive damages are appropriate in this case (from all Defendants 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 46 of 69 PageID #: 46
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 47

with the exception of Smith County) to deter and punish the clear and unabashed 

violations of Mr. Newman's constitutional rights. The Defendants' actions and/or inaction 

showed intentional, deliberate, reckless and callous disregard of, and indifference to, Mr. 

Newman's health, rights, safety and life. In addition, all such damages resulted from the 

Defendants choosing to proceed with intentional, deliberate, reckless and callous 

disregard of Mr. Newman's rights, safety, or welfare after having an actual subjective 

awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeding with actions resulting in his 

injuries and death. The Defendants' actions, when viewed objectively from their 

standpoint at the time of the acts and/or omissions involved, resulted in an extreme degree 

of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to Mr. Newman. 

Moreover, all Plaintiffs (and referenced heirs) seek from the Defendants (including Smith 

County) reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees available pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 

and 1988.

O. Withholding of Records 

135. In addition to the civil rights violations, Defendant Smith County has blocked 

and refused the release of Mr. Newman’s video of his time during solitary confinement until 

the time of his death during his incarceration in the Smith County Jail, and the full and 

complete set of medical records of Mr. Newman in the Smith County Jail. The requests were 

made properly, through a Public Information Act request, and pursuant to the Public 

Information Act, with the required HIPPA Release. However, the records have not been 

released. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 47 of 69 PageID #: 47
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 48

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

A. FIRST CLAIM – 42 U.S.C. §1983 – SHERIFF LARRY R. SMITH, SMITH 

COUNTY, JAILERS SHOEMAKER, VALLEJO-ROBLES, VEGA, 

VELAQUEZ, AND WASHINGTON AND SMITH COUNTY JAILERS JOHN 

DOE 1-20, DEPRIVED TORRY LAMONT NEWMAN OF RIGHTS, 

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AND 

EIGHTH AMENDMENTS 

136. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. Sheriff Larry 

R. Smith, Smith County and any John Doe jailers and policymakers have acted under color 

of state law. 

a. Defendant, Smith County 

137. Smith County is a unit of local government organized under the laws of the State 

of Texas. Defendant is a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and at all times relevant to this 

case acted under color of law. 

138. Smith County is a unit of local government who created, adopted, approved, 

ratified, maintained, and enforced the rules, regulations, policies, practices, procedures, 

and/or customs of the Smith County Sheriff’s Office and the Smith County Jail. Smith County 

sanctioned, approved, directed, encouraged, and knowingly consented to the unconstitutional 

conduct at issue in this case, including the failure to give Mr. Newman adequate medical care 

and his prescription medications of Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, 

Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate 

regimen by the lower-level employees, and contractors specifically stated above. 

139. Smith County had direct involvement in the decisions regarding inmate housing, 

inmate medical care, and Jail policies. It made no provisions for proper medical care for 

inmates that were placed into Detox and separation cells. When the Sheriff deemed separation 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 48 of 69 PageID #: 48
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 49

necessary, the County would fail to monitor or had inadequate monitoring of inmates who 

had known chronic medical conditions. Its administrators and policymakers directing and 

encouraging separation/solitary confinement knew and it was reasonably foreseeable that 

these inmates would likely suffer severe symptoms from the County’s failure to provide 

adequate medical care and necessary prescription medications. 

140. Smith County’s policies, practices, and/or customs were moving forces behind, 

caused, were proximate causes of, and were producing causes of, constitutional violations and 

resulting damages (including death) referenced in this pleading. 

141. Plaintiffs plead facts which give rise to, and thus assert, conditions of 

confinement claims arising from policies, practices, and/or customs working individually, or 

in the alternative, together, to cause the decedent’s death and all other damages asserted in 

this pleading. Conditions of confinement claims require no deliberate indifference on behalf 

of a governmental entity or governmental actor. In the alternative, Plaintiffs plead facts which 

give rise to episodic acts and/or omissions claims arising from policies, practices, and/or 

customs. 

142. Plaintiffs plead the following Smith County policies, practices, and customs, 

which give rise to the conditions of confinement claims, or in the alternative episodic acts 

and/or omissions claims: 

 Smith County failed to implement the policies, procedures, and practices 

necessary to provide constitutionally adequate mental health treatment, and 

medical services to Torry Lamont Newman during his incarceration in the 

Smith County Jail and implementing policies, procedures, and practices which 

actually interfered with or prevented Torry Lamont Newman from receiving 

mental health treatment and medical services. 

 Smith County failed to monitor or in the alternative had inadequate monitoring 

of inmates. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 49 of 69 PageID #: 49
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 50

 Smith County failed to implement adequate policies or procedures to provide 

proper medical care for inmates like Torry Lamont Newman who suffer from 

chronic medical conditions requiring ongoing coordinated care and treatment 

to prevent the progression of their illnesses. At all relevant times, there were 

no or inadequate policies, procedures or chronic care guidelines that were used 

at the Smith County Jail for the management of chronic illnesses. 

 Smith County failed to implement adequate policies or procedures regarding 

delivery of medications, so that there was deficient medication administration 

at the Jail. Inmates like Torry Lamont Newman were not provided their 

medications in accordance with prescriptions, and the Jail failed to follow 

general standards of care to monitor the inmates’ prescribed medication 

regimens. 

 Smith County failed to reprimand and/or take remedial action against 

employees and/or agents as a result of the action and/or inaction related to 

Torry Lamont Newman’s death, thus confirming that the policies, practices, 

and/or customs which led to such suffering and death were in fact de facto 

policies of Smith County. 

 Smith County, while knowing that inmates needed immediate in-patient 

mental health care, would incarcerate such individuals in lieu of obtaining such 

needed care. 

 Smith County had direct involvement in the decisions regarding inmate 

housing, medical care, and policies and made no provisions for inmates with 

mental illness who were refusing to take prescription medication for serious 

medical conditions and knew it was reasonably foreseeable that these inmates 

would likely suffer medical complications, symptoms and events from these 

severe medical conditions requiring medical attention, and it would be a 

foreseeable result for inmates to die from these untreated severe medical 

conditions. 

 Smith County while monitoring inmates, failed to take action based upon 

material information obtained during monitoring regarding serious physical 

and/or mental health issues. This due in part, as may be true with other 

potential policies, practices, and/or customs, to attempt to save costs. 

 Smith County had unconstitutional policies in place for serious mentally ill 

inmates and instead of having such inmates transferred to an appropriate inpatient mental health facility for needed treatment, Smith County would 

continue to incarcerate or allow incarceration of such persons.

 Smith County would take action designed to save the County money, by failing 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 50 of 69 PageID #: 50
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 51

or refusing to properly and adequately staff its jail and train its staff to properly 

supervise and monitor inmates, especially those inmates with serious medical 

and mental illnesses. 

 Smith County would take action designed to save the County money, by failing 

and/or refusing to send for needed inpatient mental health treatment, and/or to 

a local emergency room, inmates who vitally needed such care. 

 Smith County failed to provide and/or delayed providing medical and/or 

mental health treatment to inmates. 

 Smith County rather than providing mental health treatment, simply obtained 

mental health evaluations of inmates without obtaining corresponding needed 

mental health treatment. 

 Smith County rather than providing reasonable and necessary medical care 

simply placed inmates on watch lists, yet failed to properly monitor those 

inmates. 

143. The policies, practices, and/or customs referenced above, as well as the failure 

to adopt appropriate policies were moving forces behind and caused violations of decedent’s 

rights and showed deliberate indifference to the known or obvious consequences that 

constitutional violations would occur. The County was deliberately indifferent to, and acted 

in an objectively unreasonable manner regarding Torry Lamont Newman’s constitutional 

rights. The County’s relevant policies, practices, and/or customs, whether written or not, were 

also objectively unreasonably applied to the decedent. 

144. Smith County’s policy, practice, and/or custom of understaffing its jail was a 

moving force behind and caused Torry Lamont Newman’s death. Smith County made a 

conscious decision to understaff its jail, and that decision, which was a or resulted in a policy, 

practice, and/or custom, was a moving force behind and caused Torry Lamont Newman’s 

death. 

145. The County policymakers failed to develop and institute adequate reality-based 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 51 of 69 PageID #: 51
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 52

training programs relating to the incarceration, care, and treatment of individuals such as 

Torry Lamont Newman who had pre-existing chronic medical conditions and mental illness. 

As such, the County’s policymakers were indifferent to the serious medical and mental needs 

of inmates such as Torry Lamont Newman. 

146. In the alternative, without waiving any of the other causes of action pled herein, 

without waiving any procedural, contractual, statutory, or common-law right, and 

incorporating all other allegations herein to the extent they are not inconsistent with the cause 

of action pled here, Defendant Smith County is liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, for depriving Torry Lamont Newman of his rights, privileges, and immunities 

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including but not limited 

to the right to be protected and the right to adequate medical care when incarcerated. 

b. Defendants, Jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, and 

John Doe Smith County Jailers # 1-20 

147. Defendants Jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and 

Washington, and John Doe Smith County Jailers # 1-20 are employed by Smith County. 

Jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington and John Doe Jailers # 

1-20 are sued in their “personal or individual capacity, acting under color of law.” Each jailer 

individually, in combination, and collectively demonstrated deliberate indifference to the 

serious medical needs of Torry Lamont Newman and at all times relevant to this case acted 

under color of law. 

148. Each jailer individually, in combination, and collectively directed and 

encouraged the isolation of inmates on any Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 52 of 69 PageID #: 52
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 53

Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate 

regimen. 

149. Each jailer individually, in combination, and collectively sanctioned, approved, 

directed, encouraged, and knowingly consented to the unconstitutional conduct including the 

failing to give adequate medical care and prescription medication of Metoprolol Tartrate, 

Prednisone, Montelukast, Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and 

Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate regimen by the lower-level employees, and contractors 

specifically stated above. 

150. Each jailer individually, in combination, and collectively had direct involvement 

in the decisions regarding inmate housing, medical care. It made no provisions for inmates 

that he required to be placed in a separation cell, although it’s administrators, and policy 

makers directing and encouraging separation/solitary confinement protocol knew and it was 

reasonably foreseeable that these inmates would likely suffer severe symptoms due to failure 

to give adequate medical care and necessary prescription medication, necessitating medical 

attention, and it would be a foreseeable result, for inmates who had chronic medical conditions 

and were prescribed medication such as, Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, Montelukast, 

Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate 

medication or any other substances that the sheriff deemed separation necessary but would 

fail to monitor or in the alternative had inadequate monitoring of inmates. 

151. As specifically stated above. Smith County, Sheriff Larry Smith, Jailers 

Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, Smith County Jailers John 

Doe 1-20, Smith County Jail’s Contracted Medical Providers Turn Key Health Clinicians, 

PLLC and/or Turn Key Health Clinics, PLLC, and Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 53 of 69 PageID #: 53
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 54

individually, and collectively deprived Torry Lamont Newman of rights, privileges and 

immunities secured by the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution 

including, but not limited to the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, the right 

to be protected, and the right to adequate medical care when incarcerated. 

152. Defendants, Smith County, Sheriff Larry Smith, Jailers Shoemaker, VallejoRobles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, John Doe Smith County Jailers 1-20, Turn Key 

Health Clinicians, PLLC, Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC, Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, 

and John Does Medical Providers 1-5 individually, and collectively failed to adequately train 

and supervise the Jail corrections officers, medical personnel, and staff at the intake, 

assessment and correctional and medical care of inmates who arrive at the jail while taking 

prescription drugs, including Torry Lamont Newman’s Metoprolol Tartrate, Prednisone, 

Montelukast, Amlodipine Besylate, Albuterol Sulfate, and Budesonide and Formoterol 

Fumarate Dihydrate prescription. 

153. The rules, regulations, customs, policies and procedures of Smith County Jail 

and Sheriff Larry R. Smith were inadequate and unreasonable and were the moving force 

behind the constitutional deprivations suffered by Torry Lamont Newman. 

154. Although the policymakers were on notice of the obvious need to train and 

supervise Jail staff in the area of day-to-day Jail operations, policies and procedures relating 

to medical and mental health assessment and follow up care of inmates, Sheriff Larry R. 

Smith, Smith County, and any John Doe policy makers failed to adequately train and 

supervise the individual Jail staff in that regard. 

155. The policy makers failed to develop and institute adequate reality-based training 

programs relating to the incarceration, care and treatment of individuals such as Torry Lamont 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 54 of 69 PageID #: 54
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 55

Newman who had pre-existing medical conditions. As such, Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith 

County, and any John Doe policy makers were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical 

needs of Torry Lamont Newman. 

156. The policy makers developed and instituted a policy against proper care and 

treatment of individuals with asthma, such as Torry Lamont Newman, who had pre-existing 

medical need and condition. As such, Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, and any John 

Doe policy makers were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Torry Lamont 

Newman. 

B. SECOND CLAIM-VIOLATION OF ARTICLE ONE SECTION THIRTEEN OF 

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. 

157. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. Defendants 

were acting under color of state law; the defendants are liable under as well as, violation of 

Article One Section Thirteen of the Texas Constitution that cruel or unusual punishment shall 

not be inflicted. 

158. The Defendants are liable under Article One Section Thirteen of The Texas 

Constitution that cruel or unusual punishment shall not be inflicted, because they deprived 

Torry Lamont Newman of constitutional rights provided by federal and state law that occurred 

under color of state law, and were caused by state actors. 

159. Torry Lamont Newman had a right under the Eighth Amendment and the Due 

Process Clause, and as well as, Article One Section Thirteen of The Texas Constitution while 

incarcerated to adequate medical care, and be free from deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs. 

160. The Defendants treated Torry Lamont Newman with deliberate indifference to 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 55 of 69 PageID #: 55
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 56

his serious medical need especially for treatment of severe asthma, when Defendants 

recklessly disregarded the substantial risk of harm Mr. Newman would suffer from their 

failure to give him necessary prescription medication long-term to treat his known chronic 

medical conditions. 

161. Torry Lamont Newman had a right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Defendants violated when Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, Smith County Jail, and any 

John Doe policy makers and acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, in 

failing to verify his treatment with his physician and ensure he received his medication, in 

failing to transport him to the hospital, or release him from custody. Smith County’s postdeprivation procedures are inadequate to remedy the deprivation, since Torry Lamont 

Newman died as a result of the deprivation. 

A. THIRD CLAIM – MEDICAL NEGLECT IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

162. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference. 

163. At all times material to this Complaint, Smith County and Turn Key, nurses, and 

the John Doe medical providers acted under color of the statutes, customs, ordinances, and 

usage of the State of Texas and Smith County. 

164. Smith County has a non-delegable duty under Texas law and the U.S. 

constitution to provide medical care to inmates at its Jail. The County cannot absolve itself 

of this duty by simply paying someone else to carry it out. 

165. Likewise, by accepting the contract with Smith County, Turn Key has taken on 

that same duty to meet the standard of care in its provision of medical services at the Jail. 

166. Smith County’s policymaker with authority over the Jail is its Sheriff, or 

alternatively, the Commissioners Court. The Smith County policymaker was fully aware of 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 56 of 69 PageID #: 56
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 57

the contents of the County’s contract with Turn Key, which specified required staffing and 

made obvious the reliance on untrained correctional officers to recognize and respond to 

medical emergencies. 

167. Management at Turn Key has policymaking authority over the policies described 

in this lawsuit and utilized at the Smith County Jail. The Chief Executive Officer, or in the 

alternative, the Chief Operating Officer has policymaking authority for policies of the type 

alleged in this lawsuit. Alternatively, Turn Key, as a single private entity, is itself a 

“policymaker” for purposes of § 1983 liability. 

168. The policies described in this Complaint are the product of both Smith County 

and Turn Key, which collaborated and agreed on exactly how the provision of medical care 

at the Jail was to be carried out. 

169. Acting under color of law, Defendants Smith County and Turn Key deprived 

Torry Lamont Newman of the rights and privileges secured to him by the Eighth and/or 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by other laws of the United 

States by failing to provide constitutionally adequate medical treatment. Plaintiffs plead their 

case under the alternative theories of conditions of confinement and episodic acts or 

omissions.26

170. The constitutionally inadequate system of medical care – the conditions at the 

Smith County Jail – caused Torry Lamont Newman to suffer a deprivation of his 

constitutional rights. These conditions of Torry Lamont Newman’s confinement as set forth 

in this Complaint were not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Smith 

26 Plaintiffs may plead the alternative theories of conditions of confinement and episodic acts or omissions in a jail medical care case under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Shepherd v. Dallas County, 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 57 of 69 PageID #: 57
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 58

County’s and Turn Key’s intent to punish Torry Lamont Newman may be inferred from their 

decision to expose inmates such as his to an unconstitutional condition. In other words, an 

official intent to punish may be inferred from general conditions, practices, rules, or 

restrictions of confinement. 

171. Smith County and Turn Key are liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

creating, maintaining, and perpetuating the conditions of confinement that resulted in the 

constitutionally inadequate medical care at its Jail. 

172. The challenged conditions set forth in this Complaint violated Torry Lamont 

Newman’s constitutional rights and were the foreseeable product of the Smith County’s and 

Turn Key’s decision to provide insufficient medical staff the Jail. There is no doctor on site, 

and the nurses frequently fail to physically examine an inmate who submits a request for care. 

Instead, the Jail relies on non-medical correctional staff to identify and respond appropriately 

to emergencies. 

173. However, Smith County and Turn Key did not sufficiently train and/or supervise 

their staff at the Jail, including non-medical correctional officers, to ensure that they were able 

to recognize and respond to emergencies properly. 

174. The above policies, either individually or in combination, prevent an inmate at 

the Smith County Jail from having access to medical care. None of these policies have a 

legitimate penological goal. Preventing an inmate’s access to medical care cannot be seen as 

anything other than an unconstitutional punishment and is therefore an unlawful condition of 

confinement. 

175. In the alternative, Smith County and Turn Key are liable because the policies, 

customs or practices described above, including a failure to train and/or supervise their 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 58 of 69 PageID #: 58
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 59

employees, were the moving force behind episodic acts or omissions which resulted in 

violations of Torry Lamont Newman’s constitutional rights and caused the harm described in 

this lawsuit. 

176. By their actions and/or inactions as described above, Defendants Smith County 

and Turn Key have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the constitutional provisions cited in this 

Complaint. 

B. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

177. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

178. Defendant Turn Key, as the contracted medical provider for Smith County Jail, 

had a duty to provide competent medical care to Torry Lamont Newman while he was 

incarcerated at the jail. 

179. Turn Key breached this duty through the actions and/or omissions of its 

employees, who abjectly failed to meet the standard of care in providing medical services to 

Torry Lamont Newman. 

180. Turn Key’ actions and/or inactions were the cause-in-fact of Torry Lamont 

Newman’s death. 

181. Torry Lamont Newman’s death was the foreseeable consequence of failing to 

provide any medical care whatsoever despite numerous signs, exhibited over a period of 

weeks, that he was gravely ill. 

182. Turn Key can be presumed to have been negligent under a theory of negligence 

per se, because it participated in the unlicensed provision of medical care at the Jail. This 

violation of law proximately caused Torry Lamont Newman’s death, which is precisely the 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 59 of 69 PageID #: 59
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 60

type of harm Texas medical licensing statutes are designed to protect people from.

Gross Negligence 

183. Instituting a system of medical care at the Smith County Jail as described above 

involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential 

harm to inmates at the Jail. 

184. Turn Key had actual, subjective awareness of this precise risk from its 

experience with Torry Lamont Newman’s intake sheet and medical questionnaire, but 

consciously ignored this risk. 

185. Newman, the deceased, has a serious medical need and the failure to treat that 

need was caused and/or significantly contributed to his death. The Defendants, including Turn 

Key Clinics, Turn Key Clinicians, Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, and John Doe 1-5 

Medical Providers, were responsible to provide Newman with reasonable adequate medical 

care by way of state and federal law. 

186. The Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Newman’s pain, physical 

condition and his need for medical treatment. 

187. Due to the lack of care, the Defendants were deliberate indifferent in their failure 

to provide reasonably adequate medical treatment to Newman at any time during the course 

of his incarceration. 

188. Defendants were acting under the color of state law when Newman’s 

constitutional rights were being violated. 

C. WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION 

189. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. 

190. Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Smith County, Jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 60 of 69 PageID #: 60
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 61

Velaquez, and Washington, Turn Key Clinics, Turn Key Clinicians, and any John Doe 

defendants, including the policymakers or its agent’s or servants, wrongful actions, neglect, 

carelessness, unskillfulness or default and omissions in placing Torry Lamont Newman in 

separation/solitary confinement, failing to give Torry Lamont Newman his prescribed 

medicine, failing to contact his physicians, and failing to transport him to a hospital with a 

physician. 

191. Defendants owed the decedent, Torry Lamont Newman, a duty of care to provide 

him medical care and treatment in the Smith Jail. The Defendants breached that duty by 

placing Torry Lamont Newman in a separation cell, depriving him of his medication, failing 

to transport him to a hospital after asthma attacks and not medically monitoring his known 

medical conditions. 

192. Plaintiffs bring this wrongful death action against Defendants for the death of 

Torry Lamont Newman for their own damages and for the damages to the other statutory 

beneficiaries arising from the injuries which caused Newman’s death. Defendants are liable 

as the injuries were caused by their wrongful acts, neglect, carelessness, and by the wrongful 

act, neglect, and carelessness of their agents and employees as set forth above. 

193. Defendant’s acts caused the wrongful death of Torry Lamont Newman resulting 

in damages recoverable under the Texas Wrongful Death statute. 

D. SURVIVAL CAUSE OF ACTION 

194. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. As 

a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Defendants caused the deceased to suffer injury 

and death, of which has caused the general damages requested by Plaintiffs in an amount in 

excess of the applicable jurisdictional amount, to be proven at trial. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 61 of 69 PageID #: 61
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 62

195. The claims and causes of action for injuries to the health and person sustained 

by the deceased prior to his death are brought in this action pursuant to the Texas Survival 

Statute.27

VIII. DAMAGES 

196. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. 

197. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that using a 

State’s wrongful death and survival statutes creates an effective remedy for civil rights claims 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Therefore, Plaintiffs individually, representatives of the Estate 

of Torry Lamont Newman and as the heirs of Torry Lamont Newman, seek all remedies and 

damages available under Texas and federal law, including but not necessarily limited to the 

Texas wrongful death statute and the Texas survival statute, the Texas Constitution, common 

law, and all related and/or supporting case law. If Torry Lamont Newman had lived, he would 

have been entitled to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and obtain remedies and damages 

provided by Texas and federal law. Therefore, Torry Lamont Newman’s estate and/or his 

heirs at law suffered the following damages, for which they seek recovery from all 

Defendants. 

198. As a result of the acts and of Defendants as described above, Plaintiffs have 

suffered severe injuries. Plaintiffs have sustained loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, 

past and in the future. Plaintiffs have experienced great mental anguish, and will in all 

reasonable probability, continue to do so in the future by reason of the nature and severity of 

27 See Rodgers v. Police, 819 F.3d 205, 210 n.10 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding “Section 1988 incorporates the Texas 

survival statute, so federal-question jurisdiction extends to the complainant’s survival action as well.”); Rhyne,973 

F.2d at 390 (“This court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 incorporated both [the state's] survival statute and [the] wrongful 

death statute to provide full remedies for violations of constitutional rights.”). 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 62 of 69 PageID #: 62
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 63

their injuries. 

199. The Defendants’ conduct demonstrates that Defendants engaged in an unlawful 

intentional course of conduct with malice and reckless indifference to the federal and state 

protected rights of the Decedent and Plaintiffs. Defendants acted willfully, intentionally 

and/or with a reckless and callous indifference to the civil rights of the Decedent. Plaintiffs 

seek exemplary damages and punitive damages (except against Smith County) in an amount 

to be determined by the trier of fact. 

A. Punitive Damages 

200. Plaintiffs request punitive damages against each individually-named defendant. 

Exemplary damages are based on the conduct of placing Torry Lamont Newman in a 

separation cell without consulting his medical records or treating physician, and allowing 

Torry Lamont Newman to continue to suffer daily, experiencing asthma attacks, racing pulse 

rates, stroke level blood pressure, restlessness, anxiousness, irritability, jitters, agitation, 

unrestful sleep, confusion, nightmares, tremors, fatigue, muscle aches, chest pain, profuse 

sweating, urination and diarrhea without access to a toilet and a ultimately a humiliating death 

without regard to his serious medical needs, while in the custody of the Smith County Jail, 

that was outrageous, malicious, and morally culpable. 

201. Torry Lamont Newman’s death resulted from the acts of Defendants for which 

Plaintiffs seek punitive and exemplary damages against each individual Defendant (as 

allowed by law) in an amount appropriate to punish each individual Defendant, and deter 

others from engaging in similar conduct; 

202. Award punitive damages against Sheriff Larry R. Smith, John Doe actors, and 

John Doe Policy makers in an amount to be shown at trial; 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 63 of 69 PageID #: 63
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 64

203. All of the acts committed by the Defendants described herein for which liability 

is claimed were done intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously, wantonly, and/or recklessly, and 

said acts meet all of the standards for imposition of punitive damages; 

204. These actions hereby entitle Plaintiffs to punitive/exemplary damages; 

B. Actual Damages 

205. Compensatory general damages against each Defendant, jointly and severally, in 

the amount proven at trial. 

206. As wrongful death beneficiaries, Plaintiffs seeks actual damages, both general 

and special, for the loss of their spouse, child, and father, Torry Lamont Newman, for the 

following specific elements of damages: 

207. Pecuniary Loss resulting from the death of Torry Lamont Newman including, 

but not limited to, the care, maintenance, support, services, education, advice, counsel, and 

reasonable contributions of a pecuniary value, loss of inheritance that the surviving family 

would have received from Torry Lamont Newman, had he lived. 

208. Termination of the Family Relationship: The positive benefits flowing from the 

love, support, companionship, and society that LaTosha Newman, Joyce Newman, NaTori 

Newman, Tevin Newman, and ShaTorry Newman, would in reasonable probability, have 

received from Torry Lamont Newman, had he lived. 

C. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress 

209. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress suffered by Torry Lamont Newman 

during the days in jail prior to his death. Mental anguish sustained by Torry Lamont Newman 

from the time of the incident until his death; 

210. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress suffered by Torry Lamont Newman 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 64 of 69 PageID #: 64
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 65

during the days in jail prior to his death. Mental anguish sustained by Torry Lamont Newman 

from the time of the incident until his death; 

211. Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress suffered by LaTosha Newman, Joyce 

Newman, NaTori Newman, Tevin Newman, and ShaTorry Newman,: the surviving family as 

a result of the death of Torry Lamont Newman including, but not limited to, the emotional 

pain, torment, and suffering that Plaintiffs, would, in reasonable probability, experience from 

the death of Torry Lamont Newman. 

D. Loss of Inheritance 

212. The earnings, if any, of the decedent in excess of the amount they would have 

used for the support of themselves and their families, and which in reasonable probability 

would have been added to their estates and left to Plaintiffs at their natural death had he lived. 

E. Compensatory Damages

213. Including, but not limited to funeral expenses; Compensatory general damages 

against each Defendant, jointly and severally, in the amount proven at trial. 

F. Pain and Suffering 

214. Physical pain and suffering sustained by Torry Lamont Newman from the time 

of the incident until his death; 

G. Reasonable and necessary medical expenses, Reasonable and necessary funeral 

and burial expenses. 

215. Reasonable and necessary medical expenses of Torry Lamont Newman from the 

time of the incident until the time of his death; and reasonable and necessary funeral and burial 

expenses. 

H. Attorney’s Fees 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 65 of 69 PageID #: 65
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 66

216. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S. C. 1983 

and 1988 including reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred by or on behalf of 

Plaintiffs. 

I. Use of Documents at Trial or Pretrial Proceedings 

217. Plaintiffs intend to use at one or more pretrial proceedings and/or at trial all 

documents produced by Defendants in this case in response to written discovery requests, 

with initial and additional disclosures (and any supplements and or amendments to same), and 

in response to Public Information Act request(s). 

J. Equitable Relief 

218. Equitable relief, including, without limitation, that Smith County and Sheriff 

Larry R. Smith be made to apologize and to promulgate, adopt, train, maintain and enforce 

appropriate policies to prevent future instances of the type of misconduct described herein; 

Such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the court may deem proper. 

K. Additional Damages 

219.Plaintiffs seek to recover all court costs, fees, expenses and expert fees. Pre and 

post judgment interest as permitted by law; and, such other relief, including injunctive and/or 

declaratory relief, as the court may deem proper. 

IX. JURY REQUEST 

220. Plaintiffs make a demand for a trial by jury as afforded by the United States 

Constitution. 

X. PRAYER 

221. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, Estate of Torry 

Lamont Newman, LaTosha Newman, Joyce Newman, NaTori Newman, Tevin Newman, and 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 66 of 69 PageID #: 66
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 67

ShaTorry Newman, Individually and as Heirs of Torry Lamont Newman, and respectfully 

pray that Defendants Smith County, Sheriff Larry Smith, Jailers Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, 

Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, John Doe Smith County Jailers 1-20, Turn Key Health 

Clinicians, PLLC, Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC, Defendants Dimaculanga and Ellis, and 

John Does Medical Providers 1-5, be summoned to appear and answer herein, and that upon 

a final hearing of this cause, that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and against 

Defendants, both jointly and severally, for all damages requested herein, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, attorney's fees, 

costs of court, and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or 

in equity. Punish each individual Defendant, and deter others from engaging in similar 

conduct; 

222. Plaintiffs assert that the death of Torry Lamont Newman was the result of 

government actors, Smith County Sheriff Larry R. Smith and Smith County and Jailers 

Shoemaker, Vallejo-Robles, Vega, Velaquez, and Washington, and John Doe Smith County 

Jailers 1-20, individually, and collectively caused the death and harm suffered was the result 

of Defendants’ conduct motivated by evil motive or intent, or done recklessly or with callous 

indifference to the federally protected rights of Torry Lamont Newman, and hereby entitle 

Plaintiffs to punitive/exemplary damages. 

223. Equitable relief, including, without limitation, that Smith County and Sheriff 

Larry R. Smith be made to apologize and to promulgate, adopt, train, maintain and enforce 

appropriate policies to prevent future instances of the type of misconduct described herein; 

Such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the court may deem proper. 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 67 of 69 PageID #: 67
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 68

Respectfully submitted, 

 CLARK │VON PLONSKI │ANDERSON

By: /s/ Collen A. Clark 

COLLEN A. CLARK

State Bar No. 04309100 

JACOB L. von PLONSKI 

State Bar No. 24098554 

R. CONNOR BARBE 

State Bar No. 24108598 

LINDA LE 

State Bar No. 24126312 

3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1250 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

214-780-0500 

214-780-0501 Facsimile 

eservice@cvpalaw.com 

jake@cvpalaw.com 

connor@cvpalaw.com 

linda@cvpalaw.com 

 -AND- 

 MANESS LAW FIRM, PLLC 

 By: /s/ Josh B. Maness 

 JOSH B. MANESS 

 State Bar No. 24046340 

 

 480 West Texas Avenue 

 Waskom, Texas 75692-9274 

 P: (903) 407-8455 

 F: (877) 320-5751 

 josh@joshmaness.com 

 -AND- 

 

 By: /s/ Charles W. Nichols 

CHARLES W. NICHOLS 

Texas Bar No 14994200 

Email: cnichols@charleswnicholslaw.com 

617 E. Lacy St. Palestine, TX 75801 

Tel. (903) 729-5104 

Fax. (903) 729-0347 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 68 of 69 PageID #: 68
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT  PAGE 69

Admitted before the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of Texas 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

By: /s/ Donald J. Larkin 

DONALD J. LARKIN 

Texas Bar No 24057702 

Email: donald@charleswnicholslaw.com 

617 E. Lacy St. Palestine, TX 75801 

Tel. (903) 729-5104 

Fax. (903) 729-0347 

Admitted before the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of Texas 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

PLAINTIFFS HEREBY DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY 

Case 2:24-cv-00067-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 69 of 69 PageID #: 69