1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Daniel R. Shaffer

405 Ridges Blvd., Suite B

Grand Junction, CO 81507

Colorado Attorney Reg. No.: 35661

Phone: (970) 243-2552 

Fax: (970) 243-3905

Email: lawyerdan@danielshafferlaw.com

Admitted pro hac vice (see 2:18-ph-99901 [Doc. 152])

Matthew Scott Martin

Gordon Melun Maton LLP

400 S. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 420

Glendale CO 80222

Colorado Attorney Reg. No.: 10595

Phone: 303-756-0800

Email: mmartin@gorlaw.com

Admitted pro hac vice (see 2:18-ph-99901 [Doc. 150])

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Estate of Daniel Allard,

Aanda Slocum personally and as personal 

representative of the Estate of Daniel 

Allard, deceased;

 Plaintiff,

v.

Corizon Health; Inc.;

Sarah Richardson, LPN in her individual 

capacity; and,

Deborah Kinder, in her individual capacity.

 Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT, WITH JURY DEMAND

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 16
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1) Plaintiff Aanda Slocum, personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Daniel Allard, now brings this complaint against all Defendants and requests trial by jury

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

2) This action seeks damages for the death of Arizona Dept. of Corrections inmate 

Daniel Allard, who died following a traumatic brain injury sustained while confined at 

the Arizona State Prison Complex in Douglas, Arizona (“ASPC-Douglas”). Despite Mr. 

Allard’s clearly documented symptoms of a traumatic brain injury, employees and agents 

of Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. (after this, simply “CH”) failed to adequately and 

appropriately respond to Mr. Allard’s emergent health needs and substantial risk of injury 

and/or death. Because of these failures, Mr. Allard was unable to receive emergent 

medical care for over 2.5 hours while in the presence of CH and Defendants Richardson 

and Kinder (all defendants collectively referred to after this as “CH Defendants”). Mr. 

Allard died on February 6, 2016 following surgery at Banner Medical Center in Tucson, 

Arizona.

3) Mr. Allard was an inmate who was housed at the ASPC-Douglas September 20, 

2014th of 2016 until February 3, 2016 where he suffered a violent head injury.

4) Medical and staff at ASPC-Douglas were consciously aware of Mr. Allard’s 

serious medical condition and factors associated with a traumatic brain injury. 

Deliberately failing to address emergent health issues further exacerbated Mr. Allard’s 

health problems and risk of impairment and/or death. As a direct result of CH Defendant’s 

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 16
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

failure to treat Mr. Allard’s serious medical condition, failure to properly assess for risks 

associated with traumatic brain injury, continued confinement and failure to take the 

basic steps to timely treat Mr. Allard’s serious medical condition, CH Defendants 

disregarded a substantial risk of impairment and/or death and caused the death of Daniel 

Allard.

5) CH Defendants’ conduct, under color of state law, proximately caused the

deprivation of Mr. Allard’s federally protected rights.

JURISDICTION and NOTICE

6) This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is being 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3), Jurisdiction in support of attorneys’ fees and costs is 

conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

7) Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All alleged events and omissions occurred in the State of 

Arizona where Defendants maintain offices and/or reside.

8) Supplemental pendent jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because violations 

of federal law alleged are substantial and the pendent causes of actions derive from a 

common nucleus of operative facts.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 16
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF:

9) The Plaintiff, Aanda Slocum, (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Slocum”) is a natural 

person. 

10)Ms. Slocum was also a grandmother to Daniel Allard and is the Personal 

Representative of the estate of Daniel Allard. 

11)At all times hereto, Ms. Slocum was and is a citizen of the State of Colorado, a 

state within the United States of America.

12)Ms. Slocum currently lives in Delta County, Colorado with a physical address of 

1368 Hwy 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.

13)At all times hereto, Mr. Allard was a citizen of the State of Arizona, a state within 

the United States of America.

DEFENDANTS:

Corizon Health Defendants

14)Defendant Corizon Health, Inc. ("CH") is a Tennessee corporation doing business 

in the State of Arizona, with its principal Arizona street address located at 501 W. 

Highway 66, Kingman, AZ 86401. 

15)C T Corporation System, Defendant CH’s registered agent for service of process 

in Arizona and is located at 3800 N Central Ave Ste. 460, Phoenix, AZ 85012. 

16)Corizon Health, Inc., is also known simply as “Corizon Heath,” per their website. 

See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 16
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

17)In early 2013, CH contracted with the Arizona Department of Corrections to 

provide healthcare services to Arizona Department of Corrections inmates and detainees 

at ASPC-Douglas and supervises and implements such care.

18)CH is a proper entity to be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their deliberately 

indifferent policies, practices, habits, customs, procedures, training, and supervision of 

staff, including individual Defendants, with respect to the provision of medical care and 

treatment for inmates with serious emergency medical needs. 

19)At all relevant times, Defendant CH was acting under color of state law and 

performing a central function of the state thus making CH liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

20)All the conduct of the Defendant CH and its employees and agents are charged to 

the government, and Defendant CH and its employees were acting jointly with the 

government actors.

21)Defendant CH is sued directly and indirectly for negligent supervision, negligent 

training of their staff, for failing to ensure the provision of appropriate care in the 

treatment of Mr. Allard, for the acts and omissions of its agents and/or employees, and 

for the herein described acts by their involved employees, agents, staff, and affiliates, 

who were acting within the scope and course of their employment.

22)At all times relevant to the claims against her, Defendant LPN Sarah Richardson 

was and is a citizen of the United States, a resident of and domiciled in the State of 

Arizona.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 5 of 16
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23)At all relevant times, Defendant LPN Richardson was and is an employee of 

Defendant CH, was acting under color of state law and performing a central function of 

the state, thus making her liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

24)Defendant LPN Richardson is sued in her individual capacity.

25)At all times relevant to the claims against her, Defendant FNP Deborah Kinder, 

was and is a citizen of the United States, a resident of and domiciled in the State of 

Arizona. 

26)Defendant FPN Kinder was and is an employee of Defendant CH, was acting 

under color of state law and performing a central function of the state, thus making her 

liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

27)Defendant FPN Kinder is sued in her individual capacity.

Factual Allegations

28)Ms. Slocum incorporates each paragraph of the Complaint as if fully restated 

therein.

29)ASPC-Douglas is a prison within the Arizona Dept. of Corrections.

30)On September 30, 2014, 24-year-old Daniel Allard was admitted to ASPCDouglas on a 2.5-year sentence for a Class 3 felony, Attempt to Commit Trafficking of 

Stolen Property.

31)On the afternoon of February 3, 2016 at approximately 2:00 pm Mr. Allard was 

found by COII Alberto Chavez lying on a bench surrounded by brown vomit next to the 

yard office.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 6 of 16
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

32)COII Chavez requested medical assistance and notified his supervisor.

33)Mr. Allard arrived at medical within approximately 20 minutes where Defendants 

Richardson and Kinder were on duty. 

34) Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed Mr. Allard to have a radial bump 

and bleeding to the back of his head, lacerations and bruising of the left eye and blood 

coming from his nose.

35)Defendants Richardson and Kinder administered 2 liters of normal saline via IV 

and began monitoring Mr. Allard’s vital signs at 2:25 pm.

36)Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed Mr. Allard vomit 6 times over the 

course of 2 hours.

37)Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed Mr. Allard’s radial pulse to be weak 

(49 BPM) at 2:45 pm. 

38)Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed Mr. Allard’s pupils to be sluggish 

and constricted.

39)Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed that Mr. Allard was not arousing well 

over the course of 3 hours.

40)Defendants Richardson and Kinder observed Mr. Allard complaining of pain to his 

head, go in and out of a sluggish sleepy state, and dry heaving over a 3-hour period. 

41)Defendants Richardson and Kinder inexplicably ceased monitoring Mr. Allard’s 

vitals at 4:00 pm.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 7 of 16
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

42)Despite clear signs of a traumatic head injury, deteriorating symptoms, CH 

Defendants did not call for emergency medical services until approximately 4:29 pm over 

two hours after Mr. Allard presented with symptoms of a traumatic head injury.

43)Douglas County Fire and Ambulance arrived at approximately 4:45 pm.

44)Defendant Kinder advised DFD Ambulance crew Allard had likely been assaulted, 

was a known spice user and had “done this before”.

45)DFD Ambulance crew found Mr. Allard to be breathing at 12 BPM and to have a 

heart rate of 40 BPM.

46)DFD Ambulance crew advised Mr. Allard needed to be flown to an E.R. rather 

than driven due to his critical medical state.

47)Mr. Allard was driven by DFD Ambulance to Bisbee/Douglas International for 

transport to the Banner Medical Center emergency department. 

48)Mr. Allard was transported to Banner Medical Center in Tucson, Arizona via 

helicopter. 

49)Mr. Allard was in surgery at 8:36 pm on February 3, 2016.

50)Mr. Allard was pronounced dead on February 6, 2016 at 8:36 pm after being 

removed from life support at Banner University Medical Center.

51)Defendant CH has a policy and practice of providing inadequate medical and 

mental health services to the inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections and are 

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 8 of 16
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

deliberately indifferent to the fact that the systemic failure to do so results in significant 

injury and a substantial risk of serious harm.

1 2

52)The policy and practice of Defendant CH were the moving force behind the 

violations of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

53)But for custom and practice of deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious medical 

needs that was established by the custom of CH Defendants and Defendant CH’s failure 

to adequately train its employees in meeting the serious medical needs of inmates,3 Mr. 

Allard would not have been subjected, in the form of failure to provide him medical 

 

1 As used hereafter, “policy and practice” includes unwritten policies, customs, and 

actual practices of Defendants. 

2 Plaintiffs are not presently in possession of Defendant CH’s actual written policies, 

but Defendant CH presumably is in possession of its written policies; therefore, this factual 

allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. 

See F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3). Further, there are cases within the 9th Circuit where plaintiffs have 

made sufficient allegations to establish CH policies, customs or practices to defeat Rule 12 

and summary judgment motions as well as a motion objecting to discovery and to get past 

the screening of a pro se prisoner complaint. See Oyenik v. Corizon Health, Inc., 696 F. 

App'x 792, 795 (9th Cir. 2017) (Holding that “Oyenik tendered sufficient facts to survive 

summary judgment on the theory that Corizon had a custom of deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs.”); Pitkin v. Corizon Health, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02235-AA, 2017 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208058, at *13 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2017)(finding that a request for “lawsuits 

and judgments against Corizon and related entities alleging negligence and Section 1983 

violations or an award of punitive damages for the ten years prior to Ms. Pitkin's death . . . 

[were] sufficiently relevant to plaintiffs' lawsuit to warrant discovery.”); Taylor v. Ryan, 

No. CV 14-02049-TUC-JGZ, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138828, at *29 (D. Ariz. Aug. 28, 

2017) (Finding “a material issue of fact as to whether a Corizon policy or custom exists 

that strictly limits eligibility for orthopedic shoes to certain conditions.”); Nester v. Ryan, 

No. CV 15-01700-PHX-SMM (DMF), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16219, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 

21, 2016)(“The Court previously held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged [against Corizon 

and other defendants] a claim for denial of constitutionally adequate medical care.”).

3 Plaintiffs are not presently in possession of Defendant CH’s training policies, but 

Defendant CH presumably is in possession of such policies; therefore, this factual 

allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. 

See F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3).

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 9 of 16
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

attention, to a deprivation of his constitutional rights. This deprivation was a natural and 

foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ acts and omissions. 

54)The intentional actions or inactions of each individual Defendant as described 

herein intentionally deprived Mr. Allard of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, 

and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America.

55)As a direct and proximate result of each individual Defendant’s actions, Mr. 

Allard’s constitutional rights were violated and Plaintiffs have suffered damages entitling 

them to compensatory damages against the Defendants. Plaintiffs are also entitled to 

punitive damages against the CH Defendants to redress their willful, malicious, wanton 

and reckless conduct in violation of Mr. Allard’s civil rights. 

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Eighth Amendment Violation

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

(Against all Defendants)

56)Plaintiffs incorporate each paragraph of the Complaint as if restated fully therein.

57)At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants acted under 

the color of state law.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 10 of 16
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

58)Mr. Allard had a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because of a deliberate 

indifference to his known serious medical needs.

59)CH Defendants knew or should have known of this clearly established right at the 

time of Mr. Allard’s admission to ASPC-Douglas medical at approximately 2:00 pm on 

February 3, 2016. 

60)At all times, relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, CH Defendants knew of 

and disregarded the substantial risks associated with Mr. Allard’s serious medical 

condition.

61)Nonetheless, with deliberate indifference to Mr. Allard’s constitutional right to 

adequate emergent medical care, as provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution, CH Defendants knowingly failed to timely treat Mr. Allard’s 

emergent medical condition. They did so despite their knowledge of Mr. Allard’s 

emergent medical needs. Therefore, CH Defendants knew or were aware that Mr. Allard 

faced a substantial risk of harm from a traumatic head injury and disregarded this 

excessive risk by failing to take timely measures to properly treat it. 

62)All the deliberately indifferent acts of each individual Defendant were performed 

within the scope of their official duties and employment. 

63)The acts or omissions of each individual Defendant were the legal and proximate 

cause of Mr. Allard’s death.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 11 of 16
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations

Deprivation of Life Without Due Process

(Against all Defendants)

64)Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth herein.

65)At the time of Mr. Allard’s death, he had a clearly established constitutional right 

under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to not be deprived of 

life without due process of law. 

66)The acts and omissions of the individual Defendants were the moving force behind 

and proximate cause of Mr. Allard’s death without due process of law. 

67)The acts and omissions of CH Defendants deprived Mr. Allard of the rights, 

privileges, liberties and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and caused 

him other damages.

68)The acts and omissions in which CH Defendants were engaged were pursuant to 

the customs policies, and practices of CH Defendants, which encourage, condone, 

tolerate, and ratify deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of inmates by 

those acting under color of state law, and the right to not be deprived of life without due 

process. Those customs, policies and practices were the moving forces and proximate 

causes of Mr. Allard’s death and all related damages. 

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 12 of 16
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Medical Negligence Causing Wrongful Death

(Against CH DEFENDANTS)

69)Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth herein.

70)At all times relevant hereto, Daniel Allard was under the care and treatment of the 

Defendant CH’s staff, including Defendants Kinder and Richardson, through their 

contractual relationship with the Arizona Dept. of Corrections. 

71)Defendant CH is vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions by its 

agents and/or employees including those individually named herein, and directly liable 

for their own negligent failures in training, policies, and practices. 

72)CH Defendants had a duty to provide reasonable medical care and treatment to 

inmates at the ASPC-Douglas, including Mr. Allard.

73)Defendant CH had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the training and 

supervision of their employees. 

74)These duties are informed by state law. Under A.R.S. § 31-201.01, “[t]he Director 

shall provide medical and health services for the prisoners.” The provision of medical 

treatment and humane care is a statutory obligation under this and other statutes. These 

duties are also informed by NCCHC standards.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 13 of 16
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

75)Agents and employees of Defendant CH, while acting within the scope of their 

employment, vicariously committed negligent acts and omissions set forth herein with 

respect to the care and treatment of Mr. Allard. 

76)Defendant Richardson had a nurse-patient relationship with Mr. Allard and was 

acting or failing to act within the scope of her employment with Defendant CH at all 

times pertinent to this Complaint. 

77) Defendant Kinder had a nurse-patient relationship with Mr. Allard and was acting 

or failing to act within the scope of her employment with Defendant CH at all times 

pertinent to this Complaint.

78)CH Defendants owed Mr. Allard a duty to exercise that degree of care, skill, 

caution, diligence and foresight exercised by and expected of counselors/nurses in similar 

situations.

79)CH Defendants consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that 

they knew or should have known would cause the death of another. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Survival

(Against CH DEFENDANTS)

80) Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set 

forth herein

81)Plaintiff is the personal representative of the estate of Daniel Allard.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 14 of 16
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

82)Because of the deliberate indifference and/or negligence of the Defendants as 

described above, Mr. Allard suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, 

funeral expenses, medical expenses, emotional distress and pain and suffering and loss of 

enjoyment of life

83)For these reasons, Plaintiff Estate of Daniel Allard, by and through the estate’s 

personal representative, Aanda Slocum, requests that this Court enter judgment in the 

Estate’s favor against Defendants, jointly and severally, and grant:

a) Appropriate relief at law and equity;

b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional 

distress, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to 

be determined at trial;

c) Attorney’s fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees on all claims 

allowed by law;

d) Punitive damages as to the Defendants to redress their willful, malicious, wanton 

and reckless conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights; 

e) Pre-and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and

f) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as 

allowed by law. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on the claims raised by this Complaint.

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 15 of 16
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Dated this 26th day of January 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel S. Shaffer

Daniel S. Shaffer

/s/ Matthew Scott Martin

Matthew Scott Martin

Case 4:18-cv-00044-JCH Document 1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 16 of 16