IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ESTATE OF JAMES PETER RUSH, 

JACQUELINE FINN, as PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HON. BOBBY HADDOCK, as Sheriff of 

Washington County and individually, and

JONATHAN RACKARD, and FRANK 

STONE, individually,

Defendants.

Case No. ________________

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff sues Defendants and alleges as follows:

Introduction

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress 

violations of the Constitution of the United States and under state law.

2. On or about January 23, 2008, about 12:45 a.m., a frail and elderly Washington 

County resident, James Rush, age 79, using an automatic redial phone he had 

recently been given, called 911, ostensibly to report a small theft.

3. Actually, Mr. Rush suffered from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 

(COPD), had a premonition that he was going to die that night, was desperately 

afraid, and requested that an officer come out and check on him.

4. After several calls, Sheriff’s Corporal Jonathan Rackard undertook to check on 

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 19
2

Mr. Rush’s well-being and went to his home.

5. Corporal Rackard found an elderly man with oxygen tanks clearly in evidence, 

who was weak and confused and could hardly move without help. Rackard 

scolded Rush for calling 911 and said he would be arrested if he called again.

6. Because of his desperation and confusion and because his phone was set to 

automatically redial the number, 911, Rush did again call 911 and Corporal 

Rackard, on being informed of this, sent Deputy Frank Stone to arrest him.

7. Although it was clear Rush was seriously ill and should have been taken to a 

hospital, Stone took Rush to the Washington County Jail, where, without any 

special provision for his supervision and care, within 25 minutes, Rush suffered a 

heart attack and he died shortly afterwards.

Jurisdiction and Venue

8. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).

9. The Plaintiff’s claim for relief is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which 

authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, 

privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorize the award of attorney's fees.

10. This is also a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which 

authorizes actions to redress discrimination based on handicaps, and upon Title II 

of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and 42 U.S.C. § 12131.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 19
3

11. This is also a claim for damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act, §

768.16, et seq., Florida Statutes for the wrongful death of James Rush.

12. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims under the doctrine of 

supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

13. All of the actions, omissions and events complained of herein took or take place 

in the County of Washington, State of Florida, and within the venue of this Court.

14. Notice has been served pursuant to § 768.28, Florida Statutes, and all other 

conditions precedent have been satisfied or waived.

Parties

15. JACQUELINE FINN is the duly appointed Personal Representative of the Estate 

of JAMES PETER RUSH, and is presently serving in such capacity and is entitled 

to maintain this action. The beneficiaries of this wrongful death claim are Jacqueline 

Finn, decedent’s niece and Hugh S. Rush, decedent’s nephew.

16. Defendant Cpl. JONATHAN RACKARD, at all times material hereto was acting 

under color of law and within the scope of his employment as a Deputy Sheriff of 

Washington County, Florida. He was a supervisor of Defendant STONE and is 

sued in his individual and supervisory capacity.

17. Defendant Dep. FRANK STONE, at all times material hereto, was acting under 

color of law and within the scope of his employment as a Deputy Sheriff of 

Washington County, Florida. He is sued in his individual capacity.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 19
4

18. Defendant, BOBBY HADDOCK, was and is the constitutionally elected Sheriff of 

Washington County, Florida, and was the chief jailor and lawful custodian of the 

decedent from the time of his arrest until his death. He is sued in his capacity as 

Sheriff and individually as supervisor of Defendants RACKARD and STONE.

Common Allegations of Fact

19. On or about January 23, 2008, at about 12:45 a.m., James Peter Rush, Plaintiff’s 

decedent, who resided at 1865 Kent Road, Chipley, Florida, Washington County, 

Florida, called 911 to ask to have an officer come out and check on him.

20. Mr. Rush, then 79 years old, suffered from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 

(COPD), which makes it difficult to process oxygen well. 

21. Mr. Rush also suffered from anxiety when his breathing problem worsened.

22. Mr. Rush had an appointment with his medical doctor at 8:00 that morning.

23. Although persons with COPD may live with that condition for many years, Mr. 

Rush needed constant access to oxygen to survive.

24. In the early morning hours of January 23, 2008, Mr. Rush was fearful and confused 

and called 911 repeatedly, stating he did have an emergency but apparently unable to 

articulate the nature of the emergency to the 911 Operator.

25. Although Mr. Rush initially complained of a suspected petit theft and also stated he 

needed someone to talk to, he also expressed a fear that he might be found dead on 

the floor the next morning and wanted someone to check on him.

26. Mr. Rush’s elderly brother, Edward Rush, lived nearby, but was ill.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 19
5

27. Mr. Rush could have relied on his brother Edward for help but he was reluctant to 

do so since Edward was sick in bed at the time.

28. Mr. Rush reasonably relied on the agreement of Sheriff’s officers to conduct a wellbeing check on him in lieu of seeking help from others.

29. Defendant Sheriff’s Corporal Jonathan Rackard undertook to make a well-being 

check on Mr. Rush and purported to conduct the check.

30. Defendant Rackard necessarily observed that Mr. Rush used a cane to walk and was 

dependent on oxygen canisters that were in abundance at his home.

31. Despite clear indicators Mr. Rush was suffering a health crisis, Defendant Rackard

did not call for medical services, transport Mr. Rush to a medical facility, contact 

family members or make any meaningful inquiry into Mr. Rush’s health or request 

anyone else to do so but simply scolded Mr. Rush about calling 911 and left.

32. James Rush, still fearful and confused, and in reliance on the offer of help by law 

enforcement continued to call 911.

33. Defendant Rackard and the 911 Operator both became annoyed with Mr. Rush for 

his repeated calls and threatened him with arrest if he continued to call 911.

34. Defendant Rackard suffered from poor anger control and tended to make rash and 

punitive decisions when angry and Defendant Haddock was aware of this.

35. Subsequently, Mr. Rush made additional calls to 911 and Defendant Rackard

instructed Defendant Stone to go out and arrest Mr. Rush.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 5 of 19
6

36. Defendant Rackard did not share information with Stone about decedent’s health 

condition or comments Mr. Rush made about fearing he would be found dead, nor 

did he inform the Jail staff to prepare them for Mr. Rush’s fragile state of health.

37. By his deliberate indifference to Mr. Rush’s fragile state of health, Defendant 

Rackard set in motion a series of acts that resulted in the violation of Mr. Rush’s 

constitutional rights and his suffering and death.

38. When Defendant Stone arrived at decedent’s home, Mr. Rush was weak and out of 

breath and could barely rise to his feet so that Stone had to summon additional help 

to get decedent into his patrol car.

39. Though Mr. Rush was weak, ill and suffering a disability, Defendant Stone did not 

seek medical assistance or transport Mr. Rush to a medical facility but rather placed 

Mr. Rush in his patrol car and took him to the Washington County Jail.

40. Defendant Stone did not call ahead to alert the Jail staff, to prepare them for the 

fragile state of Mr. Rush’s health and the need for medical care and monitoring.

41. From the time of Defendant Stone’s arrival at decedent’s home until he reached the 

Washington County Jail, James Rush was clearly in distress. 

42. During the time James Rush was in Defendant Stone’s patrol car, he was denied 

access to his oxygen tank which had been placed in the trunk.

43. Mr. Rush was taken into the Washington County Jail, weakened by lack of oxygen, 

supported by officers on each side, and was placed in a holding cell around 7:00 a.m. 

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 6 of 19
7

44. After the door of the holding cell was closed on James Rush, jail personnel were lax 

in the supervision and monitoring of his cell.

45. At one point, James Rush managed to walk to the cell door, stood at the door, and 

tried to get the attention of jail personnel but no one came to his aid.

46. At 07:24 or 07:25 a.m., the booking officer noticed that decedent “was leaning 

sideways and his mouth was moving.” 

47. James Rush was unresponsive to the booking officer’s call and the officer went to 

find a nurse to undertake resuscitation efforts.

48. After some delay an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) was brought to the 

cell but was either used improperly or had been improperly tested or maintained.

49. Decedent was taken by EMTs to Northwest Florida Hospital at around 7:47 a.m.

where he subsequently was pronounced dead.

50. Defendant Haddock subsequently inquired upon the death and was made aware of 

its circumstances but took no action to correct or discipline any employee.

51. Defendant Haddock encouraged, condoned, acquiesced in, tolerated, ratified, or 

failed to remedy, the wrongful acts of his subordinates.

52. Defendant Haddock delegated policy making authority to Defendant Rackard 

without adequate training to respond to the events that led to decedent's death.

53. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the egregious wrongful acts of the 

Defendants, as set forth above, decedent suffered severe physical and emotional 

injuries and mental and physical pain and suffering, and ultimately, death.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 7 of 19
8

Causes of Action

COUNT I: Failure to Treat in Violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against All Defendants

54. Plaintiff re-alleges the Common Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

55. This is an action for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution against all Defendants.

56. Defendants, individually and cumulatively, were aware of facts that gave rise to an 

inference of risk of serious harm or death, and reasonably drew that inference.

57. Alternatively, Defendants employed a policy, custom, or practice that resulted in 

deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of Plaintiff’s decedent.

58. Defendants Rackard and Stone had actual notice of Mr. Rush’s medical condition

and Defendant Haddock had constructive notice.

59. Defendants, through the actions described above, caused decedent to be subjected 

to the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, including:

a. The right not to be subjected to cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment;

b. The right to have serious medical needs addressed in a timely manner;

c. State created rights enforceable under the Fourteenth Amendment including

Florida statutory protections and those fundamental rights to due process, liberty, 

and life guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 8 of 19
9

60. Defendants were deliberately indifferent and recklessly disregarded Mr. Rush’s

medical condition by:

a. Failing to provide care for Mr. Rush’s serious and deteriorating health condition 

prior to and at arrest and maintaining a policy of failing to provide such care;

b. Failing to investigate Mr. Rush’s health condition, including failure to contact 

family members for information and maintaining a policy of such failure;

c. Failing to communicate to others Mr. Rush’s fragile state of health and 

maintaining a policy of failing to so communicate;

d. Failing to prepare for the intake of a person in a serious and deteriorating health 

condition and maintaining a policy of failing to so prepare;

e. Failing to monitor and supervise Mr. Rush’s holding cell and maintaining a policy 

of failing to so monitor and supervise;

f. Failing to take Mr. Rush to a medical facility for monitoring and care for his 

serious health condition at arrest and maintaining a policy of such failure;

g. Failing to provide timely, appropriate and sufficient care at the Jail and 

maintaining a policy of such failure.

61. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the Constitutional violations as set 

forth above, decedent suffered severe physical and emotional injuries and mental 

and physical pain and suffering, and ultimately, death.

62. At all times material hereto, Defendants reasonably knew that failure to provide

adequate medical care would result in a substantial risk to Mr. Rush.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 9 of 19
10

63. The medical services provided to James Rush were so cursory and inadequate as to 

amount to no medical care at all.

64. Defendant Haddock was and is responsible for the policies, practices, procedures, 

customs, and training, which govern medical care in the Washington County Jail.

65. At all times material hereto, the Defendants were acting in conformity with, or as a 

direct result of, the established policies, practices, procedures, customs, and training,

of Defendant Sheriff Bobby Haddock. 

66. Defendants’ failures, alleged above, are attributable to the deliberately indifferent 

policies, practices, customs, and training, of Defendant Haddock.

67. Permitting life-threatening conditions to continue unchecked for non-medical 

reasons was a pervasive practice, which exhibits deliberate indifference to the serious 

medical needs of arrestees.

68. Defendants in their acts and omissions evinced

a. subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm;

b. disregard of that risk;

c. conduct that is more than mere negligence. 

Such acts and omissions constitute deliberate indifference.

69. Defendants’ reckless, callous, or deliberate indifference directly, proximately,

cumulatively, and jointly and severally caused Plaintiff’s damages as alleged above. 

70. Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel to represent her to vindicate the rights 

of the Estate. Pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, Plaintiff is 

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 10 of 19
11

entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

COUNT II: Violation Of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Of 1973 

against Defendant Haddock

71. Plaintiff re-alleges the Common Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

72. This is a claim for discrimination against the handicapped in violation of § 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, which provides in relevant part:

No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States, as 

defined in Section 706 (7) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his 

handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial 

assistance. . .

73. Plaintiff’s decedent was a handicapped person as defined by 29 U.S.C. §706(7)(B).

74. Defendant Haddock receives, and at all times material to this action, received 

federal financial assistance and received such assistance for his jail.

75. Plaintiff’s decedent was an "otherwise qualified individual" for purposes of § 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

76. Plaintiff’s decedent was a person with disabilities that prevented him from 

benefitting from services and programs, including safe custody, available to other 

inmates, but with reasonable accommodation, available to Defendant, he could 

have benefitted from those programs and services.

77. Plaintiff’s decedent could have benefitted from special care and monitoring for 

his breathing disorder and for the anxiety caused by his serious illness.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 11 of 19
12

78. Defendant’s intentional refusal to accommodate the needs of Plaintiff’s decedent 

by failing to provide special care or monitoring violated the Rehabilitation Act.

79. As a consequence of Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s decedent, 

Plaintiff’s decedent suffered pain, disability, organ failure, and death. Plaintiff is 

entitled to damages.

80. Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel to represent her to vindicate the rights 

of the Estate and is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

COUNT III: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

against Defendant Haddock

81. This is a claim pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165.

82. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered a disability as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. § 

12102(2).

83. Section 202 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides that:

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a 

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation 

in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a 

public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

84. Defendant is covered by the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA).

85. Plaintiff’s decedent was a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA in 

that, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the 

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 12 of 19
13

removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the 

provision of auxiliary aids and services, they meet the essential eligibility 

requirements for the receipt of services and participation in programs and 

activities offered by the Defendant Sheriff Bobby Haddock.

86. Plaintiff’s decedent could have benefitted from special care and monitoring for 

his breathing disorder and for the anxiety caused by his serious illness.

87. Defendant’s intentional refusal to accommodate the needs of Plaintiff’s decedent 

by failing to provide special care or monitoring violated the ADA.

88. As a consequence of Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s decedent, 

Plaintiff’s decedent suffered pain, disability, organ failure, and death. Plaintiff is 

entitled to damages.

89. Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel to represent her to vindicate the rights 

of the Estate and is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

COUNT IV: Negligent Undertaking as to Defendant Haddock

90. Plaintiff re-alleges the Common Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

91. Alternatively, Defendant Haddock is liable to Plaintiff for negligent undertaking.

92. Under § 768.28(9)(a) and § 30.07, Florida Statutes, Defendant Haddock is 

responsible for acts of his employees in the course and scope of their employment.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 13 of 19
14

93. Plaintiff brings this action as Personal Representative pursuant to and authorized by 

the Florida Wrongful Death Act, § 768.16 et seq., Florida Statutes, on behalf of and 

for the benefit of decedent’s Estate.

94. A law enforcement officer’s decision to undertake to render aid to a person is 

accompanied by a corresponding duty to exercise reasonable care. 

95. Any person or entity that voluntarily undertakes a duty not otherwise owed assumes 

an obligation to discharge that duty non-negligently.

96. At the promise of a wellness check by Defendant Haddock, through his deputies 

acting in the execution of their duties, James Rush relied on that promise and did 

not insist that his elderly brother or his neighbors come over and check on him.

97. The deputies breached their duty to the decedent and subjected him to danger of 

injury or death when they negligently failed to use reasonable care and, in light of the 

information available to them or easily discovered, they defied all manner of 

common sense and did not immediately seek medical care for the decedent.

98. Specifically, the defendants failed to act on clear indicators that Plaintiff’s decedent 

was suffering from a serious medical condition.

99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Haddock’s breach of duty to the 

decedent, Plaintiff’s decedent suffered injury and death as described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

COUNT V: Negligent Care of a Person in Custody as to Defendant Haddock

100. Plaintiff re-alleges the Common Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 14 of 19
15

101. Alternatively, Defendant Haddock is liable to Plaintiff for the negligent care of a 

person in his care and custody.

102. Under § 768.28(9)(a) and § 30.07, Florida Statutes, Defendant Haddock is 

responsible for employees’ acts in the course and scope of their employment.

103. Plaintiff brings this action as Personal Representative pursuant to and authorized 

by the Florida Wrongful Death Act, § 768.16 et seq., Florida Statutes, on behalf of 

and for the benefit of decedent’s Estate.

104. As Sheriff of Washington County, Defendant Haddock had a duty to James 

Rush, as a person in his custody, entirely dependent on Defendant Haddock for 

necessary medical care to save Mr. Rush’s life.

105. At the arrest of James Rush by Defendant Haddock, through his deputies acting 

in the execution of their duties, Defendant Haddock assumed a special custodial 

relationship to James Rush and a duty for his reasonable care.

106. Defendant Haddock breached his duty of care in failing to adequately supervise, 

train, discipline or terminate his employees in the exercise of their duties to prevent 

the suffering and death of James Rush, which breach amounted to jailor malpractice.

107. Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation from defendant Haddock for the acts 

and omissions of the individual defendants and the policies, practices, and customs 

as alleged in the Common Allegations and in Count I of this Complaint, which were 

carried out in such a fashion as to demonstrate at least negligence.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 15 of 19
16

108. Defendant Haddock or his employees acting in the course and scope of their 

employment, having knowledge that the decedent was ill and confused, breached 

their duties owed to the decedent in one or more of the following ways:

a. Failing to act on Mr. Rush’s symptoms of confusion, incoherence, unsteadiness, 

and weakness, by preparing for and providing care;

b. Treating decedent cruelly, denying him care; failing to contact family members to 

inquire further about his patently serious medical condition;

c. Failing to timely transport decedent to a properly staffed and equipped medical 

facility for treatment of a serious medical condition;

d. Failing to act promptly and effectively in rendering adequate emergency care and 

treatment to the decedent and to timely summon medical intervention;

e. Negligently screening, hiring, supervising, training, disciplining, and retaining his 

officers and employees involved in the incarceration and custody of the deceased;

f. Failing to follow normal and accepted corrections practices and procedures 

relating to the safe care of inmates.

109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Haddock’s breach of duty to the 

decedent, Plaintiff’s decedent suffered injury and death as described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

COUNT VI: Neglect of a Vulnerable Adult as to Defendant Haddock

110. Plaintiff re-alleges the Common Allegations, as though fully set forth herein.

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 16 of 19
17

111. Plaintiff is entitled to relief against Defendant Haddock in his official capacity 

under the Adult Protective Services Act, § 415.1111 Florida Statutes in that decedent 

met the definition of a “vulnerable adult.”

112. Plaintiff’s decedent was an adult whose ability to perform the normal activities of 

daily living or to provide for his own care was impaired due to a mental and longterm physical disability and the infirmities of aging.

113. Defendant Haddock, his agents and employees, in taking James Rush into 

custody, assumed the responsibility for a caregiver relationship, involving the regular 

and frequent care of Rush, or the provision of services on a temporary basis.

114. Defendant had a duty to avoid acts or omissions that caused significant 

impairment to decedent’s physical health.

115. Defendant had a duty of care to decedent to provide care, supervision and 

services necessary to maintain his health, including medicine, supervision, and 

medical services, which a prudent person would consider necessary for a vulnerable 

adult.

116. Defendant, his agents or employees, breached that duty of care by neglect in 

careless actions that could reasonably be expected to cause serious physical injury or 

a substantial risk of death, and by abusive acts or omissions.

117. Defendant Haddock, his agents and employees, acting in the course and scope of 

their employment, though having knowledge that the decedent was ill and confused, 

breached their duties owed to the decedent in one or more of the following ways:

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 17 of 19
18

a. Failing to act on Mr. Rush’s symptoms of confusion, incoherence, unsteadiness, 

and weakness;

b. Treating decedent cruelly, denying him care; failing to contact family members to 

inquire about his patently serious medical condition;

c. Failing to timely transport decedent to a properly staffed and equipped medical 

facility for treatment of a serious medical condition;

d. Failing to act promptly, properly and effectively in rendering adequate and proper 

emergency care and treatment to the decedent and to timely summon medical 

intervention;

e. Failing to properly hire, supervise and discipline his officers and employees 

involved in the incarceration and care of the deceased;

f. Failing to follow normal and accepted corrections practices and procedures 

relating to the safe care of inmates.

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Haddock’s breach of duty to the 

decedent, Plaintiff’s decedent suffered injury and death as described above.

119. Pursuant to § 415.1111, Florida Statutes, Plaintiff is entitled to actual and punitive 

damages from Defendants, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment as noted below.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks judgment as follows:

A. Compensatory damages against each of the defendants herein;

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 18 of 19
19

B. Punitive damages against defendants sued individually;

C. Pre-judgment interest on any economic losses and post-judgment interest;

D. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205 and costs of litigation;

E. A trial by jury on all issues so triable;

F. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/James V. Cook___________

JAMES V. COOK

Florida Bar No. 966843

Law Office of James Cook

314 West Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Fax: 850 561-0836

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:10-cv-00152-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 06/15/10 Page 19 of 19