Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 26 PageID 8 if} . as" film" if IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mm slittigiv?hrCH-lhm FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROBERT SCOTT Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT Civil Action No. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ET AL Defendants I. JURISDICTION VENUE 1. This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 1343 Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. 2. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because it is where the events giving rise to this claim occurred. H. PLAINTIFF 3. Plaintiff, Robert Scott, is and was at all times mentioned here, a prisoner of the State of Louisiana in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections. He is currently con?ned in Winn Correctional Center, Winnfield, Louisiana. Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 26 PageID 9 DEFENDANTS 4. Defendant, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), is a private prison contractor of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. It is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Winn Correctional Center, including its policies and customs. 5. Defendant, James M. LeBlanc, is the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. He is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Department and each institution under its jurisdiction, including Winn Correctional Center. 6. Defendant, Tim Keith, is the Warden of Winn Correctional Center. He is legally responsible for the operation of Winn Correctional Center and for the welfare of all the inmates of that prison. 7. Defendant, Daniel Marr, is the Medical Director of Winn Correctional Center who, at all times mentioned in this complaint, held the supreme supervisory position over all other medical department staff of that prison. 8. Defendant, Dr. Singleton, is a Medical Doctor of Winn Correctional Center who, at all times mentioned in this complaint, worked as medical department staff of that prison. 9. Defendant, Dr. Steven Kuplesky, is a Medical Doctor of Winn Correctional Center who, at all times mentioned in this complaint, worked as medical department staff of that prison. 10. Defendant, Kristi LaBom, is a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) of Winn Correctional Center who, at all times mentioned in this compliant, worked as medical department staff of that prison. ll. Defendant, Linda Bryant, is a Registered Nurse (RN) of Winn Correctional Center who, at all times mentioned in this compliant, worked as medical department staff of that prison. Ms A Winn Correctional Center who, ?t all times mentioned in this compliant, worked as medical department staff of that prison. Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 3 of 26 PageID 10 13. Each defendant is sued individually and in his or her official capacity. At all times mentioned in this compliant each defendant acted under the color of state law. IV. FACTS 14. On 9-21?2013, plaintiff filled out a sick call requestI to the Correctional Center medical department complaining that ?my feet are going numb. One [left foot] has three sore spots on it. My legs are numb sometimes as well.? 2 15. On 9u23-?2013, plaintiff was called to medical and seen by a female nurse (LPN Lisa Jones) who informed him that he merely had ?calluses? on his foot and rendered medical services in the form of providing ?sole pads? to place inside his shoes, and ?corn removal strips?. At that time plaintiff questioned LPN Jones about the severe pain and numbness associated with his condition. LPN Jones stated that she believed this condition to be caused by a previous heart surgery operation in 2009 where two veins were removed from plaintiffs right leg. At this time the medical visit was terminated, no follow up was scheduled, and no appointment scheduled to see a medical doctor was made. Plaintiff returned to his housing unit within the prison. 16. After this medical visit on 9?23-2013, plaintiff attempted to utilize the items provided by LPN Jones to ease the associated of his condition. Plaintiff was experiencing severe chronic throbbing pain in both feet and numbness, prohibiting him from sleeping. (116., the type pain associated with sitting on one?s feet for an extended period of time and the feet loosing blood circulation). At any time plaintiff?s body was not in a vertical position (standing straight 1 A ?Sick Cali Request? is a form inmates place within a box within the housing units and wait for medical to schedule them for appointments which may take up to a week or more. An ?Emergency Sick Call?, ?Emergency Medical Request? or ?Medical Emergency? is used in a situation Where the inmates life is in danger or his condition warrants immediate attention that cannot be scheduled for a later appointment. The same sick call request form is utilized for both regular sick calls and emergency situations and can be initiated by inmates or staff. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action for maiingering if they abuse the emergency proedures. 2 Exhibit A Sick Call Request i Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 4 of 26 PageID 11 up) both feet throbbed with severe pain. This condition necessitated that plaintiff slept upright in a chair. 17. Numerous corrections officers, including but not limited to, Dogwood Corrections Counselor Ms. Williams, Officer Mr. Perry, Dogwood Case Manager Ms. Wilbanks, Dogwood Corrections Counselor Ms. Fredrick, and Dogwood Corrections Counselor Mr. Kevin Jordan, questioned plaintiff about this activity, sleeping in a chair, and when he informed them of his they instructed him that he needed to go to medical. Plaintiff informed corrections staff that he had already been evaluated by medical. 18. Plaintiff 3 condition hereafter worsened causing him to miss work detail and meals in the mess hall. On one shift Corrections Counselor Ms. Williams and Ms. Fredrick, referenced above, began obtaining carry out trays for plaintiff to eat within his housing unit (Dogwood) because he could not walk. 19. In the interim, plaintiff ?led two additional sick call requests to the Correctional Center medical department complaining of his worsening condition. Although plaintiff was never placed on sick call call-out, he was called to the infirmary once where his blood pressure was checked and he was told his feet were fine. (This is the ?Check-up? hereafter referenced). At this time Plaintiff was delusional, seeing things crawl on him, etc., because pain had completely stopped his sleeping, except for intermittent periods of exhaustion when he would brie?y collapse with fatigue. Plaintiff collapsed numerous times, some of these instances being documented and others not. 20. On 10-20?2013, plaintiff ?led another sick call request complaining of ?unbearable pain in I can?t walk?, however, never received any medical attention, Around this time 5- v-v - eet mv .1 plaintiff? 5 feet began to swell profusely and weep puss. Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 5 of 26 PageID 12 21. Thereafter, on 10-22-2013, plaintiff ?led another sick call request to the Correctional Center medical department complaining that ?my feet have pain in both of them. I had a check up on them 2 weeks ago and nothing changed. I can barely stand on my right foot?.3 22. On 10-26-2013, plaintiff received an outside visit from family and was summoned to the visitation building. Because of swelling and severe pain, plaintiff could only wear one boot, carrying the other. His journey from the housing unit to the facility count room, en route to visitation, was approximately 150 yards, and took 30 minutes to accomplish because of his condition. 23. Upon arriving at the count room4 plaintiff encountered Head Warden Tim Keith, informing him of his condition (showing him the severe swelling and puss running from his toes) and asking for his assistance in obtaining medical treatment. Warden Keith promised to contact medical and inquire about the delay in processing plaintiffs medical requests. 24-. At visitation plaintiff spoke with his wife, Sheryl Scott, about his dif?culties obtaining any medical attention or treatment for his condition. Mrs. Scott informed her husband she would call the prison and attempt to speak with someone about their indifference to his medical needs. 25. Mrs. Scott attempted to contact Warden Keith, to no avail, however, did eventually speak with Chief of Unit Management Brenda Smiley and the warden?s secretary Shela Johnson. 26. Plaintiff? 5 wife asked Shela Johnson why her husband was not being transported to Louisiana State University Health and Science Center (LSUHSC) for evaluation and treatment; only to be told she would inform the warden of the situation. 3 Exhibit - Sick Call Request 4 The Count?Room is a centralized administrative office/building within the facilityis perimeter fence. it is used to control electronic gates accessing various wings/branches of the prisons main walk for inmate traffic. It also houses the Chief of Unit Management?s of?ce Shift Supervisor of?ce. The security of?cer working here is responsible for the prison population count, which they orchestrate through other unit staff numerous times daily. 5 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 6 of 26 PageID 13 27. When plaintiff?s wife Spoke with Brenda Smiley she assured her she would get plaintiff the medical attention he needed. 28. Plaintiff was eventually seen at the medical department for the 10~22~2013 sick call request on 10-28-2013. After arrival he was seen by LPN Kristi LaBom, who did the medical assessment. Plaintiff? 3 blood pressure was checked and he was told by LPN Kristi LaBom, ?I?ll tell the doctor?. Plaintiff was not seen by a doctor or scheduled to see a doctor by LPN LaBorn. 29. On or about 11?08?2013, plaintiff claimed a medical emergency due to unbearably severe pain in his feet, profuse swelling, weeping puss, and an inability to walk, sleep, or carry out other normal daily activities.5 At that time he also requested medical provide him with a ?second opinion? by someone outside of the Correctional Center medical department about his condition as he believed he was not being properly diagnosed. 30. Upon arrival at the medical department he was again seen by LPN Kristi LaBom, who told him ?ain?t nothing wrong with you, if you make another medical emergency you will receive a disciplinary write up for malingering?. 31. On '1 1-10-2013, plaintiff submitted his 7th medical request complaining that . .I still haven?t received the proper medical treatment. My foot is now running puss and I need to go to LSU Hospital ASAP. for help.? 6 By this time plaintiff was so delusional and generally incapacitated he utilized another inmate (Jeffery Morris #292975) to pen his sick call request. This inmate, in his attempt to help, mistakenly wrote on the sick call that plaintiff had been seen by a doctor each time he filed his last three (3) sick call request, however this was a mistake; plaintiff had not yet been seen by a doctor at this time. 5 Exhibit - Sick Call Request 5 Exhibit Sick Call Request 5 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 7 of 26 PageID 14 32. On 11?12?2013, plaintiff was seen in the medical department in reference to the 11w10~2013 sick call request at approximately 1100 hrs. by LPN Fitzgerald. LPN Fitzgerald performed a blood pressure check and took plaintiffs temperature, asking ?What is the problem??. Plaintiff explained that both his big toes were swollen and hurting. LPN Fitzgerald told plaintiff she did not see anything wrong with his feet. When plaintiff showed the leaking puss from his right foot she told him she would forward his complaint to the doctor and terminated the evaluation. Approximately 10 minutes elapsed when LPN Fitzgerald re?entered the examination room to tell plaintiff that the doctor (Dr. Singleton) said he would see him after he ?nished having lunch. Plaintiff waited until approximately 1345 hrs. for the doctor when LPN Fitzgerald again returned to the examination room to tell him that the doctor said he didn?t need to see him as he had just seen him last week.7 LPN Fitzgerald handed plaintiff a quantity of Motrin. Plaintiff asked LPN Fitzgerald what the medication was for, she explained it was pain medication. Plaintiff further inquired of LPN Fitzgerald why she would give him pain medication if she did not see anything wrong with him and if the medication would react negatively with any of his other medications. blood pressure, blood thinners, cholesterol meds) LPN Fitzgerald stated she did not know the side affects of the medication and plaintiff returned the Motrin to her, explaining that his request was to go to LSUHSC for a diagnosis and treatment of the puss, swelling, and associated of his condition because the medical staff refused to treat him or schedule him to see a doctor. LPN Fitzgerald informed that Motrin was all she was allowed to do for plaintiff and if he didn?t want it she would dismiss the sick call. 7 For clari?cation purposes, this doctor is referencing an annual ?50 and over? check up visit concerning existing medications and blood pressure; this was not an incident subsequent to a sick call request. Although, piaintiff did attempt to address his current serious medical condition at this time, however, the doctor maintained that he wished to confine this examination solely to the ?50 and over? examination and that plaintiff would need to put in a sick call request for any other matters. Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 8 of 26 PageID 15 33. On 11?17?2013, plaintiff properly filed a formal grievance with Correctional Center prison authorities under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure (CARP), also known as Louisiana Revised Statue 1521171 et seq. or Louisiana Administrative Code Title 22.1. 325.8 34. On 12-6?2013, plaintiff?s grievance was formally accepted by the prison administration and assigned ARP No. As of 4-20?2014, plaintiff has not received a response to his grievance from the Warden?s Of?ce. 35. Within plaintiff grievance he generally outlined the events thus described herein above, expressing that the doctor has no interest in treating inmates illnesses as he is hired to do or he has no [orthopedic] medical experience?, further informing prison staff that his ?ling of his formal grievance was a final desperate attempt at obtaining medical treatment within the facility before he resorted to involving outside family in the matter because he believed his constitutional rights to medical care were being violated. 36. The week prior to 11-22-2013, plaintiffs wife also spoke with Correctional Center?s Assistant Warden Nicole Walker, via telephone, about her husband?s medical condition and need of treatment, relating that she had seen him at visit and it was obvious to her that he had a serious medical problem. Plaintiffs wife told him Warden Walker said she would check into why he had not been sent to LSUHSC to see a doctor and that she would speak to the Medical Director (Daniel Marr). 37. Subsequent to the phone conversation with Warden Walker, at a visit with plaintiff, Mrs. Scott was able to speak with Warden Walker about her husband in the administration building 3 Exhibit - Request for Administrative Remedy (ARP) Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 9 of 26 PageID 16 awaiting entry to the prison to Visit. 38. Plaintiff? 5 wife later related to him during Visitation that she had expressed her concern about his health to Warden Walker, asking how she would feel if it was her family member who needed help and wasn?t receiving any consideration. Approximately 30 minutes after plaintiff?s Visit began with his wife, Warden Walker entered the Visitation building, approached plaintiff and his Visitor, and asked how he was doing. Plaintiff explained that he had diligently sought medical attention since September for the puss, swelling, pain in his feet, and his inability to sleep. Warden Walker indicated she had spoken to Medical Director Marr who indicated he had scheduled an appointment for plaintiff at LSUHSC. 39. On 11-22?13, plaintiff was summoned to medical by RN Brenda Spence.9 Plaintiff requested a wheelchair to transport him to his medical call out because of his inability to walk. Nurse Tamara Tate and an inmate orderly came to escort plaintiff to the medical department. 40. Upon entering the medical department plaintiff was escorted to the ER and RN Spence said, ?There is nothing wrong with Robert [plaintiff], I do not know why Mrs. Walker wants him looked at.? Nurse Spence asked plaintiff what was wrong with him, he explained the previously iterated herein, and showed her his wounds. Plaintiff was told by Nurse Spence, don?t see anything wrong with your feet?. 41. Medical Director Daniel Marr entered the ER, exclaiming in a loud irate manner, do not know why Mrs. Walker wants him looked at, there is nothing wrong with him!?. Plaintiff was asked by Director Marr, in a rude tone of voice, ?Where do your feet hurt?? Director Marr and RN Spence were so loud and upset with plaintiff that other staff who passed stopped to see what 9 Exhibit - Inmate Pass to Medical Nurse Spence iCase Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 10 of 26 PageID 17 was the matter only to be told, ?It?s Robert, ain?t nothing wrong with him, I don?t know Why Mrs. Walker wants his feet looked at?. 42. A doctor with three ?ngers (Dr. Steven Kuplesky) stepped into the ER and plaintiff asked him to look at his feet, because no one had ever examined his feet to see if anything was wrong with them. Plaintiff pointed out the bottoms of his feet were completely callused, RN Brenda Spence asked plaintiff, ?how do you know what it is?? Plaintiff explained LPN Lisa Jones had told him previously. RN Spence snapped, ?Ms. Jones isn?t a doctor, how would she know??. LPN Jones interjected to explain that this was at least the fourth sick call she knew about that plaintiff had ?led about his problem. 43. Dr. Kuplesky suggested various medications, however, RN Spence snapped back each time telling him, ?we don?t have any of that?, then suggesting to plaintiff to go steal salt out of the kitchen and soak his feet. RN Spence threatened plaintiff with relocation to the handicapped tier in Birch Unit unless he had learned his lesson about filling out sick call requests and making medical emergencies. RN Spence asked if plaintiff was going to walk to the unit or did he need crutches. Plaintiff requested the crutches which were provided and he was told he could go. 44. On 11-26-2013, plaintiff made another emergency medical request to the medical department indicating, ?numbness to hands?.10 By this time plaintiff?s condition had begun to spread from his feet and legs, to the upper extremities of his body, causing his hands and ?ngers to go numb as his feet had. 45. Upon arrival in the medical department plaintiff was evaluated by a RN Linda Bryant who did no more than tell him his hands looked fine, that she couldn?t tell anything was wrong with 10 Exhibit - Sick Call Request (Medical Emergency) 10 iCase Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 11 of 26 PageID 18 them, and sent him back to his housing unit - after a doctor recommended treatment just four (4) days prior and an asst. warden instructed plaintiff to be seen at LSUHCS and being transported via wheel chair to the medical department. 46. After the 11-26?2013 medical emergency, plaintiff spent more sleepless nights sitting in a chair in his housing unit, his condition progressively worsened, developing advanced gangrene dead blackened skin resembling the effects of leprosy). In addition to the previously described plaintiff also began to suffer from a blood infection caused from the rotting ?esh of his hands and feet. 47. On 12-3-2013, plaintiff sent an ?inmate request form? to the Correctional Center?s Medical Director, Daniel Marr, stating ?Mr. Marr, I?m asking why haven?t I been seen or sent to a hOSpital about my feet, sir I?m in pain and asking for your help in this matter. Thanks?. 48. Medical Director Marr?s response to this request was ?offender has been evaluated multiple times. Sat. to LSUS on 12/18/13?. 1? 49. On 12?10?2013, plaintiff collapsed with exhaustion and dizziness from his chair, striking his head on the concrete floor. Fellow inmates called of?cer?s attention to the ?man down? and the medical department arrived, transporting plaintiff to medical in a wheelchair. 50. Upon arrival he was again seen by RN Linda Bryant who noted the edema and pain plaintiff was experiencing in both feet on the emergency sick call receipt charging him for the medical emergency.12 RN Linda Bryant also located a ?lump? on plaintiff? head from the fall. RN Linda Bryant explained she could not help plaintiff, but would set up an appointment for him to see a Exhibit - Inmate Request Form 12 Exhibit Sick Call Request (Medical Emergency) ll ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 12 of 26 PageID 19 doctor - but, plaintiff was never seen by a doctor and no annotation within his records show such an appointment being scheduled. 51. On 12-14u2013, plaintiff again made another medical emergency after inmates had begun to put some type of cleaning chemicals under his bed and in his laundry bag due to their fears that plaintiffs condition was contagious.13 Plaintiff called for Shift Supervisor Joe Chatman to see the bag with chemicals poured upon it and explain that his swollen feet and hands were burning because of contact with the chemicals. 52. Upon arrival in the medical department plaintiff was again seen by RN Linda Bryant who said she could smell a chemical, but could not determine what the chemical was and would see about getting him some help in the morning, however medical never did any follow up.14 53. On 12?16?2013, plaintiff again fell, this time from the edge of his bed, once again striking his head on the concrete ?oor. Fellow inmates noti?ed of?cers of plaintiff?s fall calling ?man down?, and he was again escorted to the medical department in a wheelchair. Again, plaintiff was seen by RN Linda Bryant who took his blood pressure and temperature, and explained she would see about him seeing a doctor.15 54. On 12-18?2013, plaintiff was transported by transportation of?cer Mr. Willis to LSUHSC. Upon arrival plaintiff was seen by a young white female medical intern who explained she was standing in for the doctor. This individual indicated she did not know why plaintiff was at the hospital as no paperwork was sent with him. When plaintiff attempted to explain his 13 inmate Jacob Griffith #503310 helped plaintiff wrap his laundry bag inside a plastic bag and another laundry bag after Shift Supervisor Joe Chatman instructed to set the bag outside the dorm. At this time plaintiffs ?nger tips had turned black, as well as his toes, and wept puss. Plaintiff?s physical condition had become visually repulsive. The inmates in his housing unit had begun to put cleaning chemicals on his beiongings and on the floor around his bed in hopes to kill any germs that were causing his condition, and prevent it from spreading. 14 Exhibit I Sick Call Request (Medical Emergency) 15 Exhibit - Sick Call Request (Medical Emergency) l2 iCase Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 13 of 26 PageID 20 to her she said she would schedule a regular appointment for him. Plaintiff never returned for any follow up appointment and was not examined at LSUHSC because of Winn Correctional Center medical department staff? failure to send documentation showing the purpose of the Visit. 55. Hereafter, plaintiff made multiple other medical emergencies, where upon medical personnel re-housed him to Birch Unit (handicapped /special needs unit). 56. One night while housed in Birch Unit plaintiff was approached by other inmates who expressed they did not want him on the tier, saying they would kill him if a ranking of?cer would not move him. Assistant Shift Supervisor Williams was called to the scene because of the disturbance, an inmate told Mr. Williams plaintiff had taken another person?s medication, and Mr. Williams took plaintiff to the medical department after speaking with Shift Supervisor Joe Chatman. 57. Medical personnel (Mr. Long) questioned plaintiff about any medication he had taken and arranged for plaintiff to be transported to a local hospital in Winnfield, Louisiana. 58. Upon arrival at this hospital plaintiff submitted to a urinalysis administered by a doctor, and doctor questioned plaintiff about the condition of his hands. The doctor said it looked like gangrene, asking why he had not seen a doctor about it. Plaintiff explained that his feet were even worse than his hands and he had continuously complained about his condition to prison staff. The doctor explained plaintiff had a very serious life threatening illness which required treatment very soon, and personally scheduled plaintiff an appointment to LSUHSC for 1-7- 2014. Upon returning to the prison medical department plaintiff was admitted to the in?rmary ward. - 59. On l=7=2014, lainti was ta en to LSUHSC a after examination was told that ALL developed gangrene due to poor blood circulation and that likely they would need to amputate l3 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 14 of 26 PageID 21 one leg below the knee to save his life. 60. On 160-2014, plaintiff returned to LSUHSC for his operation. The surgeons at LSUHSC amputated plaintiffs left leg below the knee. 61. Plaintiff remained admitted to LSUHSC and approximately one (1) week later was told by doctor?s that the infection in the amputated leg had spread further and they needed to amputate more of plaintiff 3 leg (this time above the knee). The following week plaintiffs leg was further amputated. 62. Three days after plaintiff" 3 leg was amputated doctor?s determined that his left middle finger needed surgery. Doctors took a biopsy of the dead blackened tissue on his fingers and explained they were going to try and remove the infection from the finger. Doctor?s were not able to remove the infection and amputated plaintiffs left middle ?nger. 63. Approximately one (1) week after this third operation doctor?s amputated plaintiff 5 big toe from his right leg. About a week later plaintiff returned to Correctional Center, remaining in the In?rmary Ward. 64. One week later plaintiff returned to LSUHSC when doctor?s evaluated his right leg and determined that the infection remained and the right leg would need to be amputated at least below the knee. Plaintiff conceded to have the leg amputated above the knee out of fear he would have to endure additional amputation as he had with the left leg. One week later, he returned to I LSUHSC and the right leg was amputated above the knee. 65. Four days later plaintiff, a U.S. Army Veteran, was returned to the Winn Correctional Center being housed in the in?rmary ward, where he is confined to a wheel chair with 40 staples in what remains of his right leg. Plaintifs left ieg and leit middle finger else being amputated due to staff?s complete indifference to his serious medical needs. Additionally, plaintiff suffers mental l4 *Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 15 of 26 PageID 22 distress and is experiencing phantom limb 66. Plaintiff?s remaining ?ngers are partially dead with hard blackened skin. Doctors explain that the tips of the effected ?ngers will likely fall off or need amputation. 67. Upon information and belief numerous other inmates of the Winn Correctional Center have ?led 8th Amendment deliberate indifference claims for denial of medical treatment for serious medical needs against it?s medical staff - including, but not limited to, Percy Anderson #84029 (dual amputee - deceased 2014), Anderson v. Wilkinson, Docket No. 68. Upon information and belief, the CCA staff of the Winn Correctional Center have not received an annual pay increase for three (3) cumulative years, and is under advisement that the reason is due to the medical expenses of caring for the prison?s large amounts of ill/disabled/elderly inmates and legal expenses contesting medical lawsuits. This causes a bias towards inmates seeking medical attention and establishes a custom of deliberate indifference towards inmates serious medical needs, especially if the cost of treatment may be considered cumbersome. 69. Upon information and belief, Correctional Center maintains a custom of operating its prison on a ?skeleton crew? for pro?table gain, regularly having a staff insuf?ciency of forty (40) personnel, which causes a constitutionally unsafe and unsupervised environment riddled with instances of drug abuse, stabbings, possession of contraband, and inappropriate relations with staff. Inmates are also denied recreation and exercise, rehabilitative programs, work assignments, medical assistance, and religious services on a regular basis due to lack of staff. Plaintiff alleges these actions serve to further his position that CCA maintains a position 16 Plaintiff can stiil feel his legs as if they are intact, and suffers pain in both phantom limbs. 15 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 16 of 26 PageID 23 that ?its cheaper to settle lawsuits, or fight inexperienced uneducated inmates in court, than to meet constitutional standards of care?. 70. Upon information and belief, Correctional Center medical department staff practice a custom of intentionally providing knowingly de?cient medical care, whereby they merely charge inmates for ?sick call? visits and tell them there is nothing they can do for them or administer trivial treatments, just to create documentation purporting an inmate was treated by medical. Unless an inmate?s condition is imminently life threatening to a layman no treatment is provided, serious stab wounds, diabetic epilepsy. Broken bones are left un-mended for extended periods of time and often left to heal incorrectly on their own. Prescribed medication of all kinds is routinely not given, not re?lled timely, or discontinued with no explanation, causing complications. All such instances have been documented by inmates through the Administrative Remedy Procedure at the facility - while numerous others have not out of fear of retaliation. 71. Upon information and belief the Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections is experiencing a fiscal crisis, due to the largest per capita prison population in the world, caused by the extended sentences Louisiana prisoners receive, which is destabilizing the prison system and it?s faculties. The department secretary, James M. LeBlanc, reportedly has commented on the ?scal situation stating, ?The across-the-board reductions will destabilize our prisons to the point of being unsafe. We will not be able to feed or provide Accordingly, Secretary James M. LeBlanc, is aware of the deteriorating state of the prison system he is legally responsible for managing. Secretary LeBlanc is aware that his prison?s are operating under 17 Quote taken from a local periodical the Winn Parish Enterprise; dated May 25, 2011. Since this articles pubiication numerous state prison facilities have closed, and the Louisiana fiscal situation has worsened. l6 ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 17 of 26 PageID 24 compromised conditions for providing safety and medical care to inmates. V. EXHAUSTION OF LEGAL REMEDIES 72. Plaintiff, Robert Scott, used the prisoner grievance procedure available at Winn Correctional Center to try and solve the problem. On 11-17-2013 plaintiff, Robert Scott, presented the facts relating to this complaint. On 12-6-2013 plaintiff, Robert Scott, was sent a response letter- indicating his grievance had been accepted for consideration. As of today?s date plaintiff has received no response to his grievance and all administrative deadlines for a response have tolled, thereby exhausting the procedure. VI. LEGAL CLAIMS 73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-71. 74. The deliberate indifference by prison staff to treat him for a serious medical need violated plaintiff Robert Scott?s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which caused plaintiff to lose or have amputated both legs and multiple ?ngers. RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE 75. The Eight Amendment protects rights to medical care. The Constitution guarantees prisoners this right, even though it does not guarantee medical care to individuals outside of prison because, as one court explained, ?An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met.? Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US. 97, 103 (1976). To prevail in an Eight Amendment challenge to the medical care in prison, one must show: a serious medical need; prison of?cials showed ?deliberate indifference? to the serious medical need, and this deliberate indifference caused injury. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US. 97 (1976). 17 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 18 of 26 PageID 25 SERIOUS MEDICAL NEED 76. Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners are only entitled to medical care for ?serious medical needs.? 77. Some courts have held that a serious medical need is ?one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor?s attention.? Hill v. Dekalb Reg?l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994). Courts usually agree that the medical need must be ?one that, if left 3? unattended, ?poses a substantial risk of serious harm. Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000). In other words, if a doctor says treatment is needed, or the need is obvious, then it is probably ?serious.? 78. In considering whether a serious medical need exists, the court should consider several factors, including: (1) Whether a reasonable doctor or patient would consider the need worthy of comment or treatment, (2) Whether the condition signi?cantly affects daily activities, and (3) Whether there is chronic and serious pain. For more on these factors, see Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158 (2nd Cir. 2003). 79. Plaintiff, Robert Scott, contends that the facts contained within paragraphs 13?65 suf?ce a serious medical need worthy of comment or treatment. Plaintiff?s condition was so severe that numerous non-medical layman corrections staff commented on his condition warranting treatment. These individuals determination of that serious need was the fact that plaintiffs condition significantly affected daily activities, as he could not walk to the kitchen for meals and slept in a chair because of chronic and serious pain - later, because of the swollen and blackened physical condition of his feet and ?ngers. 80. Other inmates in the prison had begun to advance threats against plaintiff if prison of?cials 18 ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 19 of 26 PageID 26 would not move him away from them, and they put chemicals to kill germs on his belongings out of fear his condition was contagious. 81. Prison medical staff, and other ranking of?cers, told plaintiff he would see a medical doctor about his condition, because they believed it warranted treatment, but these words were not sincere because the words spoken were not followed up by appropriate action or behavior. 82. Additionally, when plaintiff was eventually seen by a medical doctor away from the prison his condition was immediately identified as serious and life threatening, the complete failure to treat at the prison was noted, and the doctor ordered he be sent to LSUHSC for treatment where plaintiff was subject to amputation within days. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE 83. The standard for ?deliberate indifference? in medical care cases is the same two?part standard used in cases challenging conditions of con?nement in prison. To prove deliberate indifference, one must show that (1) prison officials knew about a serious medial need and (2) failed to respond reasonably to it. Estelle, 429 US. at 104. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). Courts most often find deliberate indifference when: a prison doctor fails to respond appropriately or does not respond at all to serious medical needs; Prison guards or other non?medical officials intentionally deny or delay access to treatment; Or, when these same non?medical of?cials interfere with the treatment that a doctor has ordered. Estelle, 429 US. at 104-105; Melov v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 84-9 (8th Cir. 2002). 84. However, ?deliberate indifference? can be shown in various other ways. For example, several conduct by the prison medical staff? may add up to deliberate indifference. See DeGidio v. Pung, 19 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 20 of 26 PageID 27 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990); White V. Napoleon, 897 F,2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990); Rogers V. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052(11th Cir. 1986); Wellman v. Faulker, 715 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1217, 82 L. Ed. 2d 885, 104 3587 (1984); Ramos V. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 68 L. Ed. 2d 239, 101 1759 (1981); Todaro V. mg, 565 F.2d 48 (2d. Cir. 1977). 85. Sometimes ?deliberate indifference? is demonstrated by acts or statements by prison personnel directly showing an indifferent or hostile attitude toward prisoners? medical needs. Hughes V. Joliet Correctional Center, 931 F.2d 425, 428 (7th Cir. 1991) (medical staff told prisoner with spinal injury he was ?full of shit?); Mullen V. Smith, 738 F.2d 317, 318-19 (8th Cir. 1984) (prisoner was subjected to ?ridicule and derision? in response to complaints of pain and inability to walk). But most often, courts focus on facts that show that professional judgment was either not exercised or was not followed after it was exercised. In those fact situations, good intentions may not be a defense. As one court stated: Deliberate indifference can be proved by showing a prison official?s mental state. But deiiberate indifference is also a standard for measuring the adequacy of prison officials? responses to the known medical needs of inmates and their system for allowing inmates to make their needs known.18 86. There are several familiar patterns that courts have held can constitute deliberate indifference: Delay or denial of access to medical attention; Denial of access to medical personnel qualified to exercise judgment about a particular medical problem; Failure to inquire into essential facts that are necessary to make a professional judgment; Interference with medical judgment by non?medical factors; and 13 Weeks V. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 187 (6m Cir. determination of deliberate indifference does not require proof of intent to harm or a detailed inquiry into [the defendant?s] state of mind. . . [The] facts establish that he was deliberately indifferent?); Wellman V. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 173 (?7th Cir. intentions? do not excuse a ?serious systemic deficiency?) 20 QCase Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 21 of 26 PageID 28 Failure to carry out medical orders. 87. In addition to these ?no professional judgment? considerations court?s give substantial weight to expert testimony criticizing the prisoner?s care, rather than dismissing it as a difference of opinion among doctors in cases involving serious medical conditions, often leading to disability, or dis?gurement.19 88. A Department of Corrections supervisor or prison warden may be deliberately indifferent if 0 or if they fail to remedy they maintain policies that interfere with adequate medical care,2 unlawful conditions that they know or should know about,21 or if they otherwise fail to carry out their responsibilities to provide adequate medical care. 89. Prisons may use nurses, physicians? assistants or medical technical assistants to determine priorities in seeing a doctor and to handle minor problems for which a doctor is not necessary. However, in such a system, the person doing the screening must have adequate training and physician supervision, and prisoner?s who need a physician?s direct attention must receive it.22 90. Lastly, the Supreme Court reminded court?s in Farmer v. Brennan, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994), that ?whether a prison of?cial had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial. 114 at 1981. 19 Liscio v. Warren, 901 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. l990)(expert affidavit describing a prisoner?s medical care as ?severely mismanaged? supported a claim of deliberate indifference) 20 Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771-72 (9?11 Cir. 1986)(supervisory of?cials could be liable for budgetary restrictions on medical care); Bass by Lewis v. Wailenstein, 769 F.2d at 1184?86 (damages awarded against assistant warden and medical administrator based on de?ciencies in sick call procedures). 21 Bass by Lewis V. Wallenstein, 769 F.2d at 1184-86 (assistant warden and medical administrator could be held liable for failure to act on previous warnings of inadequate medical care) 22 Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d 783, 789?90 (11th Cir. 1989)(damages awarded where physician?s assistantfailed to diagnose a broken hip, refused to order an x?ray, and prevented the prisoner from seeing a doctor); Wolkel v. Ferguson, 689 F. Supp. 756, 759. 21 ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 22 of 26 PageID 29 91. Defendant, Tim Keith, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff?s serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 22?25, 33?34, he (I) witnessed plaintiff?s condition signi?cantly affected daily activities and (2) caused chronic and serious pain, for which plaintiff had repeatedly sought adequate medical evaluation and treatment by a doctor, however insincerely told plaintiff he would check into the matter and ignored his complaints. Further, Tim Keith?s mental state towards plaintiff?s serious medical condition is evidenced by (1) his disregard for plaintiff?s wife?s attempts at contacting him, and the subsequent disregard of information passed on to him by his secretary, Shela Johnson, about plaintiff? serious condition, and (2) his intentional failure to address plaintiff formal grievance. Warden Tim Keith also failed to adequately supervise the staff of his medical department by acting on warnings of inadequate medical care, and/or, promotes a culture of deliberate indifference toward prisoner?s medical needs by intentionally denying or delay access to treatment. 92. Defendant, Daniel Marr, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 35?42, 46-47 53, he (1) subjected plaintiff to ridicule and derision in response to his complaints of pain and inability to walk. Defendant Marr made a mockery of Assistant Warden Nicole Walker?s wishes that plaintiff be evaluated and sent to LSUHSC - as it was clear to her as a layman his condition warranted attention. Director Marr also failed to adequately supervise the staff of his medical department by acting on warnings of inadequate medical care, and/or, exhibits and promotes a culture of deliberate indifference towards prisoner?s medical needs by intentionally denying or delaying access to treatment, and discourages legitimate complaints with ridicule and derision. Such was exhibited by Director Marr?s excessive delav of month in sending plaintiff for medical attention after instruction from a supervising warden, and then his intentional failure to properly fill out or send 22 ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 23 of 26 PageID 30 appropriate documentation with plaintiff to procure suf?cient treatment and evaluation by LSUHSC staff. 93. Defendant, Dr. Singleton, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 31, he was informed by medical staff that plaintiffs condition required a doctors professional judgment, however refused to examine or treat plaintiff because he had seen him the week prior for unrelated medical questioning, when at that time Dr. Singleton also refused to discuss plaintiffs complained of medical condition. Dr. Singleton?s actions constituted (1) a failure to inquire into essential facts that are necessary to make a professional judgment; (2) denial of access to medical personnel quali?ed to exercise judgment about a particular medical problem, and (3) a failure to respond appropriately or to respond at all to serious medical needs which resulted in permanent lasting injury to plaintiff. 94. Defendant, Dr. Steven Kuplesky, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 27-29, he (1) failed to inquire into essential facts that were necessary to make a professional judgment about plaintiffs condition, and (2) patronizingly recommended various salves, lotions, and salt soak treatments for gangrene in plaintiffs feet, allowing his assistant (RN Spence) to recommend plaintiff steal the salt from the prison kitchen to treat his feet. As described in plaintiffs grievance, this doctor demonstrated that he lacks a sincere desire to properly treat serious medical needs. 95. Defendant, Kristi LaBom, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 27-29, she deliberately lied to plaintiff about scheduling him to see a doctor, preventing him from obtaining treatment or an evaluation by a re essional. This is corroborated by LPN LaBom?s subsequent deriding attitude (mental state) towards plaintiffs condition by stating nothing was wrong with him when she 23 ?Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 24 of 26 PageID 31 threatened disciplinary action upon him if he complained further of pain or an inability to walk. Kristi LaBom?s actions constituted (1) a delay or denial of access to medical attention, (2) a denial of access to medical personal quali?ed to exercise judgment about a particular medical problem, and (3) subjected plaintiff to a pattern of derision and ridicule for seeking medical attention for severe chronic pain or an inability to walk, etc. 96. Defendant, Linda Bryant, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff?s serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 44 48?52, she repeatedly (1) ignored plaintiff?s medical condition and made insincere assurance that she would have plaintiff see a doctor, (2) noted plaintiff 3 condition in his medical file, however did nothing to af?rm further evaluation by a quali?ed personnel, and (3) denied or delayed access to persons trained to properly evaluate or treat plaintiff medical condition. 97. Defendant, Brenda Spence, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff?s serious medical needs when, as described within the events of paragraph 38-42, she (1) subjected plaintiff to ridicule and derision in response to his complaints of pain and inability to walk, which were forwarded to her by Medical Director Marr after he Spoke with Assistant Warden Nicole Walker - who wanted plaintiff evaluated and sent to LSUHSC - as it was clear to her as a layman his condition warranted attention, and (2) she intentionally denied or delay access to treatment by interfering with the treatment that a doctor had recommended by non-medical factors (?nancial de?ciencies), and (3) threatened plaintiff with retaliation if he made further medical request. 98. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges all named defendant?s possessed the necessary mental state, and that the facts substantiate, claims of deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs 99. Plaintiff had been (1) questioned by numerous non~medical staff about the severity of his 24 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 25 of 26 PageID 32 condition, (2) missed work detail and meals, (3) was threatened by fellow inmates who where visually repulsed by his condition and feared his illness was contagious, (4) could not walk or go eat, (5) was transported to medical in a wheel-?chair multiple times by medical staff, (6) could not sleep because of severe chronic pain, (7) passed-out and fell striking his head numerous times because of exhaustion and blood poisoning, (8) was recommended OTC pain medication (Ibuprofen) by medical staff when they purportedly saw nothing wrong with him, (9) moved him to a disabled handicapped housing area, then (10) gave him crutches to walk while (11) threatening him with retaliation if he filed further medical request; all while maintaining nothing was wrong with him. 100. Not one of the named defendants of the Correctional Center, or it?s medical department, ever provided plaintiff with treatment for his serious medical needs. If not for security staff?s attempt to punish plaintiff for false allegations of taking another inmates medication and transporting him to a local medical facility for a urinalysis for disciplinary reasons, where a doctor quickly identi?ed his condition as seriously life threatening, he would have very likely died as a result of their deliberate indifference. (C). CAUSATION 101. As a result of the defendants deliberate indifference by failing to respond to plaintiff?s serious medical condition he suffers permanent lasting injury. 102. The plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein. Plaintiff has been irreparably injured by the conduct of the defendants and seeks the court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief. 25 Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 26 of 26 PageID 33 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this court enter judgment granting plaintiff: 103. A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein violated plaintiff?s rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 104. Compensatory damages in an amount determined by the court, or a jury, against each defendant, jointly and severally. 105. Punitive damages in an amount determined by the court, or a jury, against each defendant. 106. A jury trial on all issues triable by jury. 107. Plaintiff? 3 cost in this suit. 108. Any additional relief this court deems just, proper, and equitable. Dated: ?3 Respectfully submitted, f? . - Robert Scott #3/91769 Winn Correctional Center PO. Box 1260 Winn?eld, LA 71483-?1260 VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing compliant and hereby verify that the matters alleged therein are true, except as to matters alleged on information and belief, and, as to those, I believe them to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Winnfield, Louisiana on May 15, 2014. (CW to (:57 Robert soon; #391769 26