Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff

v.
THOMAS R. KANE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:cv-11-2266
(Complaint Filed 12/7/11)

(Nealon, J.)
Filed Electronically

DEFENDANTS’AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants Bryan A. Bledsoe, Thomas R. Kane, Joseph Norwood, David
Young, Donald Hudson, Jr., Captain Bradley Trate, Sean Snider, Lt. Chris
Mattingly, Lt. James Fleming, Lt. Pedro Carrasquillo, Lt. Matthew Saylor, Lt. Jason
Seeba, Lt. Roger Miller, Lt. Camden Scampone, Lt. Kyle Whittaker, Lt. Aaron
Sassaman, and Lt. Thomas Johnson hereby assert affirmative defenses and answer
Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson's Amended Complaint.

1

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 2 of 36

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Second Affirmative Defense
On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed the “hostile” inmate claims, class
action claims, and Fifth Amendment claims. The only remaining claims involve
the purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in the
Amended Complaint that regard the dismissed claims do not require a response.
Third Affirmative Defense
To the extent any of the Defendants are named in their official capacities for a
claim for monetary damages, they are entitled to sovereign immunity.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
It is Defendants understanding that the Court’s Order of April 9, 2013,
dismissed Defendants Thomas Kane, former Acting Director of the Bureau of
Prisons and Joseph Norwood, Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
It is Defendants understanding that the Court’s Order of April 9, 2013,
dismissed all claims against all Defendants in their official capacity and for

2

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 3 of 36

injunctive relief when it dismissed the class action claims. To the extent, the Court
did not dismiss those claims, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring injunctive
claims as he is no longer imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”).
Sixth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff failed to make any effort to mitigate his damages.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff’s damages, if any, should be proportionately decreased based upon
Plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff is barred from recovery based upon his own assumption of the risk.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ actions proximately caused any
damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants ask the Court to grant judgment in their favor and
against Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson together with costs, disbursements, and other
relief the Court finds appropriate.

3

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 4 of 36

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the Amended

Complaint. Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no answer is required. By way of further response,
paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint also contains averments regarding class
action claims that were dismissed by this Court, and therefore, no response is
required. To the extent, the remaining averments of paragraph 1 of the Amended
Complaint contain factual allegations relevant to the remaining claims, Defendants
deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2-5. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 2-5 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraphs 2-5
of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusion or averments of law to which
no answer is required.
PARTIES
6.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended

Complaint. By way of further response, Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson is currently

4

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 5 of 36

incarcerated at the Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado.
Richardson was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg,
Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”) from March 11, 2010, through September 10,
2012.
7.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Thomas R. Kane
was the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), from May 7,
2011, until December 21, 2011. Defendants deny the remaining averments of
paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint contain legal
conclusions or averments of law to which no answer is required.
8.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Joseph Norwood is
the Regional Director of the Northeast Region for the BOP, which region includes
USP Lewisburg. Defendants deny the remaining averments of paragraph 8 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the remaining averments
contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no answer is required.

5

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 6 of 36

9.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Bryan A. Bledsoe
was the warden of USP Lewisburg from April 13, 2008, through March 31, 2012, at
which time he retired. Defendants further admit that Bledsoe was responsible for
approving the use of ambulatory or four-point restraints in accordance with BOP
Program Statement 5566.06, Use of Force and Application of Restraints.
Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended
Complaint. By way further answer, Defendants deny that Bledsoe was responsible
for “overseeing and implementing inmate housing and recreation placement
decisions.” By way of still further answer, the remaining allegations of paragraph 9
of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments of law to which
no answer is required.
10.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that David Young is
an Associate Warden (Programs) at USP Lewisburg and he is generally responsible
for custody and security at the institution, including some decisions involving
cellmate placements If Young was Acting Warden, he was responsible for
decisions involving the placement of inmates into restraints. Defendants deny the
remaining averments contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint.

6

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 7 of 36

Defendants specifically deny that Young is responsible for making decisions
involving recreation cage placements and the use of restraints. By way of further
response, the remaining averments contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended
Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments of law to which no answer is
required.
11.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Donald Hudson
was an Associate Warden (Custody) at USP Lewisburg from January 31, 2010,
through July 28, 2012. He was generally responsible for custody and security at the
institution, and that if he was Acting Warden, he was responsible for decisions
involving the placement of inmates into restraints. He is currently Warden at FCI
Raybrook (New York). Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in
paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants specifically deny that
Hudson was responsible for “decisions involving cellmate and recreation cage
placements.” By way of further response, the remaining averments contained in
paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments of
law to which no answer is required.
12.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Bradley Trate was

7

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 8 of 36

the Captain of USP Lewisburg from October 11, 2009, through March 10, 2012.
He is currently assigned as an Associate Warden at FCI Raybrook (New York).
Trate was generally responsible for custody and security at the institution.
Defendants deny the remaining averments of paragraph 12 of the Amended
Complaint. Defendants specifically deny that Trate was responsible for “decisions
involving cellmate and recreation cage placements and the use of restraints." By
way of further response, the remaining averments contained in paragraph 12 of the
Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments of law to which no
answer is required.
13.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Sean Snider was
the Deputy Captain at USP Lewisburg during relevant times noted in the averments
made in the Amended Complaint and that he was generally responsible for custody
and security at the institution. Effective March 10, 2012, Snider became Deputy
Captain at USP Florence (Colorado). Defendants deny the remaining averments
contained paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants deny that Snider
was responsible for “decisions involving cellmate and recreation cage placements
and the use of restraints.” By way of further response, the remaining averments

8

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 9 of 36

contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no answer is required.
14.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Defendants Pedro
Carrasquillo, Thomas Johnson, Roger Miller, Matthew Saylor, Camden Scampone,
Jason Seeba, and Kyle Whittaker are all Lieutenants at USP Lewisburg. By way of
further answer, James Fleming is now a Lieutenant at the Allenwood United States
Penitentiary in White Deer, Pennsylvania (“USP Allenwood”); Christopher
Mattingly is now a Lieutenant at the Hazelton United States Penitentiary in Bruceton
Mills, West Virginia (“USP Hazelton”); and Aaron Sassaman is now a Senior
Officer Specialist at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution in White Deer,
Pennsylvania (“FCI Allenwood”). Defendants admit that at all times relevant to the
Complaint, Scampone, Fleming, Carrasquillo, Saylor, Mattingly, Sassaman, Seeba,
Miler, Johnson, and Whitaker were generally responsible for custody and security at
USP Lewisburg. Defendants deny the remaining averments of paragraph 14 of the
Amended Complaint. Defendants specifically deny that Scampone, Fleming,
Carrasquillo, Saylor, Mattingly, Sassaman, Miller, Johnson, and Whitaker were
responsible for “decisions involving cellmate and recreation cage placements.”
Defendants also specifically deny that as a lieutenant, these defendants had the

9

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 10 of 36

authority to authorize the placement of inmates into ambulatory or four point
restraints. By way of further response, the remaining averments contained in
paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments of
law to which no answer is required.
FACTS
General Background on the USP Lewisburg Special Management Unit
15-43. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments.
Failure to Intervene to Prevent Inmate on Inmate Violence
44-46. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments.

10

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 11 of 36

Punitive Use of Restraints
47.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 47 of the Amended

Complaint.
48.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 48 of the Amended

Complaint only to the extent that ambulatory restraints, black boxes, and four point
restraints are used according to policy.
49.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that ambulatory
restraints are defined in policy as “soft and hard restraint equipment which allow the
inmate to eat, drink, and take care of basic human needs without staff intervention.”
Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 49 of the
Amended Complaint.
50.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that a “black box” is
an approved component that may be used when applying hand restraints that
minimizes the opportunity for the inmate to access the key hole of the restraints in an
attempt to defeat them. Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in
paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint.

11

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 12 of 36

51.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that placing an inmate
in four point restraints involves placing an inmate on a bed with a mattress. His
hands are restrained to the bed by either hard or soft restraints as is determined on a
case by case basis. Legs are restrained in the same manner but to the bottom of the
bed in soft or hard restraints. Defendants deny the remaining averments of
paragraph 51 contained in the Amended Complaint.
52.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that hard restraints
consist of metal handcuffs, metal leg irons, and a metal martin chain that goes
around and inmate’s waist. Hard restraints may include a black box (previously
described). By way of further answer, although the handcuffs restrict the inmate’s
movement of his wrist, the inmate can still move his wrists. Defendants deny that
there is a “practice” to put the chain waist farther up on the torso so that it is actually
on the inmate's chest; the waist chain is placed around an inmate's waist.
Defendants deny that the shackles prevent an inmate from climbing to a top bunk,
although it would be difficult. Defendants deny that an inmate's ability to walk is
“severely” limited; although it is limited. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint.

12

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 13 of 36

53.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit to the extent that
policy provides:
Staff are authorized to apply physical restraints necessary to gain
control of an inmate who appears to be dangerous because the inmate:
a. Assaults another individual; b. Destroys government property; c.
Attempts suicide; d. Inflicts injury upon self; or e. Becomes violent or
displays signs of imminent violence. This rule on application of
restraints does not restrict the use of restraints in situations requiring
precautionary restraints, particularly in the movement or transfer of
inmates (e.g., the use of handcuffs on moving inmates to and from a
cell in detention, escorting an inmate to a Special Housing Unit pending
investigation, etc.).
BOP P.S. 5566.06 § 1. Defendants admit that restraint equipment or devices (e.g.,
handcuffs) may not be used “as a method of punishing an inmate.” BOP P.S.
5566.06 § 6.h.(1). Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in
paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint.
54-58. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraphs 54-58 of the
Amended Complaint.
59-61. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 59-61 of the
Amended Complaint.
62.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 62 of the Amended

Complaint only to the extent that BOP P.S. 5566.06 provides, “[f]or this PS’s
purposes, progressive restraints are defined as the process of using the least
13

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 14 of 36

restrictive restraint method to control the inmate as deemed necessary for the
situation. Based on the inmate’s behavior, more restrictive and secure restraints
may be used.” BOP P.S. 5566.06 § 9.
63.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit the warden is
permitted to authorize the use of four-pointing. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint. By way of
further response, in the absence of the warden, the Acting Warden may authorize the
use of four-point restraints.
64-65. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the
Amended Complaint.
66-73. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 66-73 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further answer, ambulatory restraints allow an
inmate to eat, drink, and take care of basic human needs without staff intervention.
BOP P.S. 5566.06 § 9. Four-point restraints require staff intervention to allow the
inmate to use the bathroom, etc.
74.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments in paragraph 74 of the

Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that for inmates in four-point restraints,
BOP P.S. 5566.06 provides that “[a]t every two-hour review, the inmate will be

14

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 15 of 36

afforded the opportunity to use the toilet, unless the inmate is continuing to actively
resist or becomes violent while being released from the restraints for this purpose.”
BOP P.S. 5566.06 § 10.e. By way of further response, inmates in ambulatory
restraints (soft or hard) are able to take care of basic human needs without staff
intervention; therefore, there is no need for a “bathroom break.” Defendants deny
the remaining averments contained in paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint.
75-82. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 75-82 of the
Amended Complaint.
83.

On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged

placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments.
84.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 84 of the Amended

Complaint. By way of further answer, all inmates are allowed to seek formal
review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement via the
administrative remedy process. Procedures for filing administrative remedies are
contained in BOP Program Statement 1330.16, Administrative Remedy Program.

15

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 16 of 36

85.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 85 of the Amended

Complaint. By way of further answer, Defendants state the Plaintiff has been placed
in restraints on several occasions since January 2011, for displaying signs of
imminent violence of threatening to kill staff, assaulting staff, threatening to assault
staff, and threatening to assault other inmates.
The February 3, 2011 to March 2, 2011 Restraints Placement
86.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint.. By way of further answer, from
February 3, 2011, to March 2, 2011, a total of 27 (not 28) days, Plaintiff was in
ambulatory restraints except for approximately seven hours and forty-five minutes
on February 10, 2011 (at which time he was in four-point restraints) and for
approximately 3.5 hours on February 23, 2011 (during which time he was
completely out of restraints.) Defendants deny the remaining averments contained
in paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint.
87.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 87 of the Amended

Complaint.
88.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 88 of the Amended

Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information

16

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 17 of 36

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 88
of the Amended Complaint.
89.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further answer, Defendants
admit that Plaintiff’s prior separation information was available to select staff;
however, it cannot be ascertained if the information from 2007-2008 was the same
information available in 2010. Defendants deny the remaining averments
contained in paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further response,
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the averments contained in paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint.
90-91. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in
paragraphs 90 and 91 of the Amended Complaint. In particular, Defendants do not
know how Richardson defines “compatible.”
91-98. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraphs 91-98 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that on February
3, 2011, prison staff directed Richardson to accept a new cell mate, and he refused to
submit to hand restraints. Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in

17

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 18 of 36

paragraphs 91-98 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further response,
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the averments contained in paragraphs 91-98 of the Amended Complaint. By
way of still further answer, Defendants lack information about an inmate referred to
by Richardson as “the Prophet.”
99.

Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in

paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Lieutenant
Fleming assembled a Use of Force Team on February 3, 2011, after Richardson
refused to accept an assigned inmate into his cell and displayed signs of imminent
violence by threatening to assault any inmate placed into his cell. Confrontation
avoidance measures were successful, and Richardson submitted to hand restraints.
Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 99 of the
Amended Complaint.
100. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Richardson was
escorted to the laundry area, where he was visually searched and placed in paper
clothes. Staff then placed Richardson into hard ambulatory restraints. Defendants
deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 100 of the Amended
Complaint.

18

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 19 of 36

101-103. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 101-103 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, Richardson did initially
complain in a calm voice that the martin chain was too tight. By way of further
response, medical staff assessed Richardson after correctional staff applied the
restraints. Medical staff found the hand and leg restraints did not restrict circulation
were not excessively tight.
104. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 104 of the Amended
Complaint.
105. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that staff assigned
Richardson a new cell on February 6, 2011. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint. By way of
further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about whether staff assigned Richardson with a cellmate on this date.
106. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 106 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, staff placed Richardson in four point
restraints on February 10, 2011, for threatening to assault staff. By way of still
further response, Richardson remained in four point restraints for approximately
eight hours.

19

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 20 of 36

107. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 107 of the Amended
Complaint.
108. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Richardson
complained while being placed into four point restraints. Defendants deny that
staff who placed Richardson in restraints intended to cause Richardson any harm.
By way of further answer, the Defendants state that Plaintiff was medically assessed
after being placed into four point restraints. The attending medical personnel stated
that Richardson’s blood flow and capillary refill were good. Defendants deny the
remainder of the averment.
109. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 109 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further answer, inmates in four point restraints are offered
water and the opportunity to use the toilet every two hours during restraint checks.
At every two-hour review, the inmate will be afforded the opportunity to use the
toilet, unless the inmate is continuing to actively resist or becomes violent while
being released from the restraints for this purpose.
110-112.

Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 110-112 of the

Amended Complaint.

20

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 21 of 36

113. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 113 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit Richardson remained
in four point restraints for approximately eight hours. Defendants deny the
remaining averments contained in paragraph 113 of the Amended Complaint.
114. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 114 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that after
approximately eight hours in restraints, staff took Richardson out of the four point
restraints and placed him back into ambulatory restraints through February 23, 2011.
Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 114 of the
Amended Complaint.
115. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 115 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that staff took
Richardson out of restraints on February 23, 2011. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 115 of the Amended Complaint. By way of
further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 115 of the Amended
Complaint.
116-119. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 116-119 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further answer, on February 23, 2011,

21

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 22 of 36

approximately 3.5 hours after staff released him from all restraints, Richardson
again became disruptive by threatening to harm any inmate placed into his cell.
Staff had to place Richardson back in hard ambulatory restraints for displaying signs
of imminent violence (threatening to harm any cell mate he received).
120. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 120 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that, in accordance
with BOP P.S. 5566.06, whenever an inmate is placed in ambulatory restraints, staff
must follow the procedures in Sections 10 and 13 of the Program Statement,
including conditions of confinement, scheduled checks, documentation, and 24 and
48 hour reviews by the Warden and staff. Section 10 states, “[a] review of the
inmate's placement in four-point restraints shall be made by a Lieutenant every two
hours to determine if the use of restraints has had the required calming effect and so
that the inmate may be released from these restraints (completely or to lesser
restraints) as soon as possible.” BOP P.S. 5566.06 §§ 10, 13. Defendants deny the
remaining averments contained in paragraph 120 of the Amended Complaint.
121. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 121 of the Amended Complaint.. By way of further answer, Defendants
Mattingly, Carrasquillo, Fleming, Saylor, Sassaman, Seeba, Miller and T. Johnson
conducted checks on Plaintiff’s restraints from February 3, 2011, to March 2, 2011.

22

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 23 of 36

Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 121 of the
Amended Complaint.
122-123. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 122-123 of the
Amended Complaint.
124-125. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraphs 124 and 125 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further answer,
Defendants admit that Defendants Mattingly, Carrasquillo, Fleming, Saylor,
Sassaman, Seeba, Miller and T. Johnson had the authority to release Richardson
from restraints in accordance with BOP P.S. 5566.06. Defendants deny the
remaining averments contained in paragraphs 124 and 125 of the Amended
Complaint.
126-127. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 126 and 127 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further answer, a lieutenant need not be present
when medical checks are done, but frequently is. Medical staff makes the clinical
determination whether medical attention is needed. If the medical staff determines
the restraints are restricting blood flow or causing other medical concerns they will
be discussed with the lieutenant. The lieutenant has the responsibility and authority
to adjust tightness of restraints.

23

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 24 of 36

128. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 128 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further answer, Richardson did not name medical staff as
defendants, and the non-medical staff Defendants do not have access to an inmate’s
medical records, let alone the ability to modify them.
129. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 129 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further answer, in accordance with BOP P.S. 5566.06,
Defendants (Lieutenants) looked for a pattern of non-disruptive behavior over a
period of time as an indication that Richardson had regained self-control and was no
longer a disruptive threat.
130-134. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 130-134 of the
Amended Complaint.
135. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 135 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in paragraph
135 of the Amended Complaint.
136. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 136 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to whether Richardson slept on the floor during this
time period.

24

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 25 of 36

137. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 137 of the Amended
Complaint.
138. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 138 of the Amended
Complaint.
139. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 139 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments that Richardson had 15
cell mates during this time frame.
140. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the averments in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments
141. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended
Complaint.
The May 17, 2011 to June 2, 2011 Restraints Placement
142. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 142 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was
released from hard ambulatory restraints on March 2, 2011, and staff thereafter

25

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 26 of 36

assigned a cellmate to Richardson. Defendants deny the remaining averments
contained in paragraph 142 of the Amended Complaint. By way of further
response, Defendants do not know what Richardson means by the word compatible
as used under these circumstances.
143-152. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 143-152 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in
paragraphs 143-152 of the Amended Complaint.
154-155. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the
Amended Complaint.
156. Defendants admit only that on May 17, 2011, the Richardson refused to be
placed into hand restraints so that a new cell mate could be placed into his cell.
157. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 157 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that on May 17,
2011, correctional staff instructed Richardson to submit to hand restraints in order to
accept a new cell mate. Richardson refused to be placed in hand restraints and
threatened to assault any inmate placed in his cell. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 157 of the Amended Complaint.

26

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 27 of 36

158. Defendants admit only that a use of force team assembled and went to his cell
on May 17, 2011.
159. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 159 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Defendant
Saylor led the use of force team on May 17, 2011, and Defendant Fleming was a
member of the team. Defendants also admit that their confrontation avoidance
measures were successful and Richardson submitted to hand restraints.
Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 159 of the
Amended Complaint.
160. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 160 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that staff placed
restraints on Richardson on May 17, 2011. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraph 160 of the Amended Complaint.
161-162. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 161 and 162 of the
Amended Complaint.
163. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 163 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in paragraph
163 of the Amended Complaint.

27

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 28 of 36

164. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 164 of the Amended
Complaint.
165-167. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 165-167 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, Defendants lack knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the averments contained in
paragraphs 165-167 of the Amended Complaint.
168. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 168 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that on May 31,
2011, the use of force team (led by Defendant Carrasquillo) placed Richardson in
four-point restraints. By way of further answer, the team placed Richardson in
restraints after Richardson became disruptive and displayed signs of imminent
violence towards staff by encouraging other inmates on the range to become
disruptive, by smearing feces, and by threatening staff who entered the cell with
bodily harm. Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph
168 of the Amended Complaint.
169-170. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraphs 169 and 170 of
the Amended Complaint.
171. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 171 of the Amended
Complaint.

28

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 29 of 36

172. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 172 of the Amended
Complaint.
173-176. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 173-176 of the
Amended Complaint.
177-178. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraphs 177 and 178 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that
Lieutenants had the authority to release Richardson from restraints after he
demonstrated a pattern of regained self-control. Defendants deny the remaining
averments contained in paragraphs 177 and 178 of the Amended Complaint.
179. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 179 of the Amended
Complaint. By way of further answer, Richardson remained in hard ambulatory or
four-point restraints for a period of 16 (not 17) days from May 17, 2011, to June 2,
2011.
180. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 180 of the Amended
Complaint.
181-183. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 181-183 of the
Amended Complaint.
184. Defendants admit in part and deny in part the averments contained in
paragraph 184 of the Amended Complaint. Defendants admit that Defendant

29

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 30 of 36

Norwood’s office received notice of when institutional staff had to maintain an
inmate in restraints for longer than eight hours and he received periodic status
updates. Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 184 of
the Amended Complaint.
185. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 185 of the Amended
Complaint.
186. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 186 of the Amended
Complaint, including subparts. By way of further answer, the averments contained
in paragraph 186 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or averments
of law to which no answer is required.
Class Action Allegations
188-207. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments.

30

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 31 of 36

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I
Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson v. Defendants Bledsoe, Young,
Hudson, Trate, Snider, Fleming, Mattingly, Carrasquillo, Saylor,
Sassaman, Seeba, Miller, Johnson, and Scampone
Eighth Amendment violation, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for February 3, 2011, to
March 2, 2011 restraints placement
208. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-207 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
209-212. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 209-212 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in
paragraphs 209-212 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no response is required.
Count II
Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson v. Defendants Bledsoe, Young,
Hudson, Trate, Snider, Saylor, Fleming, Scambone, Seeba, Carrasquillo
Johnson, Whittaker, Mattingly, and Miller
Eighth Amendment violation, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for May 17, 2011 to June 2,
2011 Restraints Placement
213. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-212 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

31

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 32 of 36

214-217. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 214-217 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in
paragraphs 214-217 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no response is required.
Count III
Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson v. Defendants Bledsoe, Young,
Hudson, Trate, Snider, Fleming, Mattingly, Carrasquillo, Saylor,
Sassaman, Seeba, Miller, Johnson, and Scampone
Fifth Amendment violation, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for February 3, 2011, to
March 2, 2011 restraints placement
218. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-217 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
219-221. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 219-221 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in
paragraphs 219-221 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no response is required. By way of still further response,
the Court dismissed all Fifth Amendment claims.

32

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 33 of 36

Count IV
Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson v. Defendants Bledsoe, Young,
Hudson, Trate, Snider, Saylor, Fleming, Scambone, Seeba, Carrasquillo
Johnson, Whittaker, Mattingly, and Miller
Fifth Amendment violation, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for May 17, 2011 to June 2,
2011 Restraints Placement
222. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-221 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
223-225. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraphs 223-225 of the
Amended Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in
paragraphs 223-225 of the Amended Complaint contain legal conclusions or
averments of law to which no response is required. By way of still further response,
the Court dismissed all Fifth Amendment claims.
Count V
Class v. Defendants Kane, Norwood, Bledsoe, Young, and Hudson
Eighth Amendment Violation
226. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-225 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

33

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 34 of 36

227-230. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments.
Count VI
Class v. Defendants Kane, Norwood, Bledsoe, Young, and Hudson
Fifth Amendment Violation
231. Defendants incorporate by reference the responses to the averments contained
in paragraphs 1-230 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
232-235. On April 9, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims regarding the alleged
placement of “hostile” inmates together. The only remaining claims involve the
purported improper use of restraints on Richardson. Thus, the allegations in this
paragraph(s) of the Amended Complaint are irrelevant and do not require a response.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the averments. By way of
still further response, the Court dismissed all Fifth Amendment claims.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiff Sebastian Richardson take
nothing by way of his Amended Complaint and that the same be dismissed with the

34

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 35 of 36

Defendants’ costs of suit incurred in consequence thereof, together with such other
and further relief as the Court deems appropriate in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER J. SMITH
United States Attorney
/s Michael Butler
Michael Butler
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Atty. I.D. No. PA81799
Anita L. Lightner
Paralegal Specialist
U.S. Attorney’s Office
228 Walnut Street, 2nd Floor
Post Office Box 11754
Harrisburg PA 17108-1754
Tel: (570)348-2800
Fax: (570)348-3816
Dated: May 9, 2013

35

 Case 3:11-cv-02266-WJN-DB Document 41 Filed 05/09/13 Page 36 of 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff

:
:
:
:
v.
:
:
THOMAS R. KANE, et al.,
:
Defendants :

CIVIL NO. 3:cv-11-2266
(Complaint Filed 12/7/11)

(Nealon, J.)
Filed Electronically

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the Office of the
United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is a person of
such age and discretion as to be competent to serve papers. That on May 9, 2013,
she served a copy of the attached
DEFENDANTS’AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System (“ECF”) and that the Addressee(s)
listed below are filing users under the ECF system. Upon the electronic filing of a
pleading or other document, the ECF system will automatically generate and send a
Notice of Electronic Filing to all filing users associated with this case. Electronic
service by the Court of the Notice of Electronic Filing constitutes service of the filed
document, and no additional service upon the filing user is required.
Addressee(s):
Jennifer J. Tobin, Esquire
jtobin@paolp.org
/s Anita L. Long
Anita L. Long
Paralegal Specialist